Archive for February, 2014

On Tuesday, March 25 at 12 p.m. the Tax Society will host the renown International Tax academic and lawyer Dr. Dennis Weber. Dr. Weber will discuss his advisory practice for cross border tax cases, and that of Loyens & Loeff where he is head of the European Direct Tax Law practice, before the European Court of Justice. Loyens & Loeff is the largest European continental law firm.

“I met Dr. Dennis Weber last year during a Thomas Jefferson Tax Society career service event when he revealed how Holland is often the center of the world of international finance, and how tax law students can take advantage of often overlooked employment opportunities in this area,” explained Tax Society Liaison Mark Hackman. “I was excited to obtain a generous sponsorship from William Byrnes for the Tax Society to bring Dr. Dennis Weber back to campus to re-engage with our students.”

“I look forward to returning to Thomas Jefferson, this time to discuss tax cases recently before the ECJ that are impacting the European Union common market,” Dennis Weber iterated.

“Moreover”, he continued, “the OECD BEPS project is on every tax counsel’s mind, and such discussions normally involve The Netherlands because, as a business friendly jurisdiction for fifty years, it has attracted multinational operations, employment and tax revenue using a ‘carrot’ policy. Other countries are competing for multinationals’ operations, employment and tax revenue with a ‘stick’ policy of imposing high compliance costs to dissuade international activities. The next five years will be an interesting time as the G20 goes head to head to try to peel away these operations and tax revenue from each other.”

Mark Hackman continued. “We hope to attract the next generation of candidates to learn about Professor Byrnes’ international networking and publication opportunities through his Thomas Jefferson courses. My tenure with the Tax Society has been rewarding and helped me obtain my position with the San Diego County Tax Collector, and now it’s time to pass this torch.”

“Dr. Weber and I will continue to explore online possibilities for joint international tax courses for our programs that may bring additional benefits for the undergraduate law degree, based on our discussions in January with the UvA Law Dean Edgar du Perron,” revealed Associate Dean Byrnes.

Dennis Weber affirmed, “Our faculty has been impressed with Professor Byrnes’ lectures and academic interactions with us, and this has led me to return to Thomas Jefferson to continue to develop the relationship. We have invited him to lecture with our faculty for our Colombian university partnership programs in May.”

“The Tax Society is organizing an April lunch discussion with Dr. Valcir Gassen, who is spending the year at Thomas Jefferson through the support of Brazil’s Ministry of Education CAPES Foundation”, interjected Mr. Hackmann. “Dr. Gassen will talk with students about Brazil-U.S. trade and investment, and divulge opportunities for Thomas Jefferson law graduates.”

Dr. Dennis Weber is a professor of European Corporate Tax Law and the director of the University of Amsterdam’s Centre for Tax Law. He is an author of many books, such as Taxation of Companies – Capital Gains on Shares; the EU Treaty Freedoms (IBFD) and CCCTB: Selected Issues (Kluwer). He heads the European direct tax law practice at Loyens & Loeff and specializes in advising clients in European tax law proceedings for the Dutch courts, the European Court of Justice and foreign courts. He is also a deputy judge in the regional court of appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch.

On Wednesday March 5 (Prof. Robert Bloink) and on Wednesday April 2 (Assoc. Dean William Byrnes) are presenting on 2 soft skills topics about obtaining and maintaining clients. March 5 will focus on lead development (see below). April 2 will focus on client cloning, including: asking intriguing questions,C2C qualified introductions, repeatingyour successful formulae and finally, client crowd sourcing.

Complicated products and financial strategies make the need for intelligent financial guidance more important than ever before. However, providing effective guidance is now more time consuming than ever. You must be both knowledgeable and service oriented to advise clients successfully.

Robert is co-author of The National Underwriter Company’s soon to be published book, Sales Essentials: Prospecting, along with William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M, CWM. In the past five years, Robert worked to put in force in excess of $2 billion of death benefit for insurance industry producers. His financial products practice incorporates sophisticated wealth transfer techniques as well as counseling institutions about their insurance portfolios. He is a professor of tax for the Graduate Program of International Tax and Financial Services, Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

Robert joins us through special arrangements with the National Underwriter Company, the industry’s leading publisher of expert authored reference materials
for insurance, tax and financial planning professionals.

A few of the important topics we’ll cover include:

Phases of relationship building to cultivate a web of clients and referrals.

In-person networking: cultivating prospects and referrals through meetings at local events.

How to build relationships by adding value to the prospect’s business in the initial stages of the relationship.

The importance of focusing on the prospect and leaving detailed discussions of the financial professional’s business goals for later.

How to recognize when it’s time to close the deal. (Hint: when the prospect or referral knows, likes and trusts the advisor.)

This 45-minute webinar will be loaded with content and suggestions that can be used immediately with your next customer appointment or prospect. Learn the best practices of today’s top producers and advisors. Create success with a small-time commitment.

On March 1st, 8th and 15th I have scheduled a series of FATCA articles to post. Please “email subscribe” to this blog on the left menu if you want to read the interesting FATCA updates, and other tax related news.

Today’s Hearing

I have just finished listening to today’s live 7 plus hour > hearing < (Wednesday, February 26) of the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on tax evasion associated with unreported bank accounts of Americans held at Credit Suisse. Below I paraphrase and excerpt the most intriguing statements.

Based upon its two-year investigation, the Subcommittee reported that Credit Suisse opened Swiss accounts for over 22,000 U.S. customers with assets that, at their peak, totaled roughly $10 billion to $12 billion. The Subcommittee stated that the vast majority of these accounts were hidden from U.S. authorities and that U.S. law enforcement officials have been slow to collect the unpaid taxes or hold accountable the tax evaders and bank involved.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the subcommittee chairman said “The Credit Suisse case study shows how a Swiss bank aided and abetted U.S. tax evasion, not only from behind a veil of secrecy in Switzerland, but also on U.S. soil by sending Swiss bankers here to open hidden accounts. In response, the Department of Justice has failed to use the U.S. legal tools that won the UBS case and has instead used treaty requests for U.S. client names, relying on Swiss courts with predictably poor results. It’s time to ramp up the collection of taxes due from tax evaders on the billions of dollars hidden offshore.”

“For too long, international financial institutions like Credit Suisse have profited from their offshore tax haven schemes while depriving the U.S. economy of billions of dollars in tax revenues by facilitating U.S. tax evasion,” said Senator John McCain, ranking member of the subcommittee. “As federal regulators begin to crack down on these banks’ illicit practices, it is imperative that they use every legal tool at their disposal to hold these banks fully accountable for willfully deceiving the U.S. government and seek penalties that will deter similar misconduct in the future.”

Amount Recovered Thus Far from Non-Compliant Taxpayers

According to the GAO Reports and the Subcommittee report, the 2008, 2011, and the ongoing 2012 offshore voluntary disclosure initiative (OVDI) have led to 43,000 taxpayers paying back taxes, interest and penalties totaling $6 billion to date, with more expected. However, the vast majority of this recovered money is not tax revenue but instead results from the FBAR penalties assessed for not reporting a foreign account. The Taxpayer Advocate found that for noncompliant taxpayers with small accounts, the FBAR and tax penalties reached nearly 600% of the actual tax due! The median offshore penalty was about 381% of the additional tax assessed for taxpayers with median-sized account balances.

Have These Efforts Substantially Increased Taxpayer Compliance?

The Taxpayer Advocate, replying on State Department statistics, cited that 7.6 million U.S. citizens reside abroad and many more U.S. residents have FBAR filing requirements, yet the IRS received only 807,040 FBAR submissions as recently as 2012. The Taxpayer Advocate noted that in Mexico alone, more than one million U.S. citizens reside, and many Mexican citizens reside in the U.S. (and thus are required to file a FBAR for any Mexican accounts of $10,000 or greater).

Thus, at a current rate well below 10% compliance (because nonresident aliens in the US must file a FBAR on their non-US accounts of $10,000 and over), it appears that all the additional enforcement is producing similar results of the War on Drugs. This is not to say that obtaining a highly level of compliance with the tax law , like compliance with the drug laws and DUI laws, is not a public good in itself – it indeed is a public good that the public has chosen, via Congress (and its investigatory hearings), for resource allocation. But like the War on Drugs, there are many potential strategies to bring about compliance, about which pundits such as law enforcement officials, social libertarians, the medical profession, and all their paid lobbyists, debate.

Credit Suisse Statement to Subcommittee:

Credit Suisse is a global financial services company with operations in more than 50 countries and over 45,000 employees including approximately 9,000 U.S. employees in 19 U.S. locations. In the United States, Credit Suisse is a Financial Holding Company regulated by the Federal Reserve. The Bank has a New York branch, which is supervised by the New York Department of Financial Services, and we have three regulated U.S. broker/dealer subsidiaries. Our primary U.S. broker/dealer has been designated a Systemically Important Financial Institution under the Dodd-Frank law. We have a substantial business presence here in the United States.

Credit Suisse Exit of U.S. Relationships

Following our decision to prohibit former U.S. clients of UBS from transferring their assets to Credit Suisse, in August 2008, Credit Suisse promptly turned to addressing issues highlighted by the UBS situation. In October 2008, Credit Suisse decided to allow relationships with non-U.S. entities that had U.S. beneficial owners only if they demonstrated U.S. tax compliance. We hired a leading Swiss law firm to review the tax status of U.S. clients that wanted to remain. By the end of the first year of review, all but 135 relationships with assets over $10,000 had been reviewed and resolved.

In April 2009, we extended our review to U.S. resident clients. Credit Suisse transferred virtually all U.S. resident accounts to one of the Bank’s U.S.-registered affiliates, or terminated the relationships. Credit Suisse simply shut down those client relationships that were unwilling to move or that did not meet the $1 million requirement for transfer to the Bank’s U.S.-regulated affiliates. By the end of the first full year of review, 2010, we had reviewed and resolved more than 85% of U.S.-resident relationships with assets over $10,000.

To ensure that the review was comprehensive, we also manually searched for accounts that, although not identified in our systems as U.S.-linked, could possibly have some U.S. connection – for example, a U.S. phone number or address in the paper client file, or a notation of a U.S. birthplace on a foreign passport. Credit Suisse also reviewed the private banking activities of its subsidiaries, including Clariden Leu, which was a nearly wholly owned Credit Suisse subsidiary between 2007 and 2012. Clariden Leu’s review and exit projects paralleled the projects at Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse also engaged one of the Big Four accounting firms to conduct its own review to assess whether the Bank had effectively identified the account relationships with U.S. links. This firm carefully analyzed the Bank’s efforts – with an intense line-by-line analysis of account information – and concluded to an extremely high level of confidence that Credit Suisse had identified the complete population of U.S. account relationships. The results of this substantial effort have been presented to the Subcommittee staff.

Subcommittee “Undeclared Accounts” Methodologies Unreliable

Credit Suisse repeatedly discussed with the Subcommittee staff the fact that it is impossible for us to know the tax status of assets previously held by U.S. clients if those clients did not disclose that information to the Bank. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee has chosen to speculate based on a number of “methodologies,” each of which is problematic and generates results that are, at best, unreliable. The Subcommittee’s need to reference three conflicting “methodologies” is an implicit recognition that accurate estimates of unreported U.S. client assets previously held at Credit Suisse cannot be made based on the actual information available to the Bank and to the Subcommittee.

8,300 Accounts under $10,000 FBAR Reporting Requirement

In any event, the Subcommittee assumes that every U.S. client account held abroad was undeclared. As discussed below, that is a demonstrably inappropriate assumption. Moreover, U.S. Treasury Department regulations required U.S. citizens to report foreign accounts only if the balance exceeded $10,000 at some point during the year. While the Subcommittee staff has mentioned 22,000 accounts, more than 8,300 had balances below $10,000 as of December 31, 2008.

6,400 Accounts for US Expats Residing in Switzerland

Troublingly, these estimates also lump in categories of accounts where there is every reason to believe that the client had a valid reason for holding a Swiss account. For example, the Subcommittee’s estimates of “undeclared” accounts include approximately 6,400 accounts held by all U.S. expats who would ordinarily have a need for some form of local banking services outside of the U.S. Again, it should not be ignored that most expats resided in Switzerland, and therefore had a particularly valid reason for maintaining a bank near their homes.

Finally, each of the three “methodologies” that the Subcommittee staff has raised is problematic for different reasons:

First Methodology No Factual Basis

The first method wrongly suggests that the number of accounts closed during the Bank’s

“Exit Projects” may be a proxy for “undeclared” accounts. The Bank’s “Exit Projects” revealed that U.S. clients left the Bank for various reasons. For example, Credit Suisse decided to simply shut down around 11,000 U.S. resident accounts when the Bank decided to stop having Swiss-based private bankers service U.S. residents and because those clients’ balances did not meet the $1 million requirement for transfer to the U.S. regulated affiliates. Those clients never had the opportunity to demonstrate tax compliance because their accounts were simply terminated. There is no basis factually to assume that all of these clients were not tax compliant.

Second Methodology Unsupported

The second method, the “UBS method,” is simply unsupported. This method proposes to estimate accounts by considering all accounts without Forms W-9 to be “undeclared” U.S. accounts. The absence of a Form W-9 alone in no way supports an inference that a client failed to report the account to the IRS, or that the Bank was aware that the client failed to do so. The Qualified Intermediary Agreement with the IRS required the preparation of a Form W-9 only if the client maintained U.S. securities. If the client did not maintain U.S. securities, a Form W-9 was not required. These are the IRS’s rules. Because this method does not consider whether the client maintained U.S. securities, it is inaccurate to assume that the account was maintained to evade U.S. taxes.

Third Methodology Inconclusive

Nor is the third method conclusive. The so-called “DOJ Estimate” recounts a figure of $4 billion stated in an indictment of certain Bank relationship managers. Because the grand jury’s proceedings are secret, neither we nor the Subcommittee have any basis to assess the grand jury’s methodologies.

Credit Suisse Assets Under Management

As to Assets under Management (AuM), it should be noted that our exit projects established that an approximate amount of $5 billion of AuM was reviewed and verified for tax compliance over the years. This number includes AuM transferred to our U.S.-registered entities or closed after tax compliance was established. In addition, approximately $2.25 billion AuM lost its U.S. nexus over the years. Finally, of the accounts that were closed over the years we simply have no basis to assume that all of them were undeclared.

It was discussed between the Senators and the representatives of Credit Suisse that the actual amount of AUM compared to Credit Suisse’s AuM was miniscule, and that such AuM contributed less than 1% to Credit Suisse’s profits. However, Senator John McCain, the minority ranking member, told the Credit Suisse representatives that, while small in the context of the bank, amounts of billions and the profits made therefrom, are large amounts to a American taxpayer if made aware of such conduct. While listening to the Senator’s assessment (and agreeing), I wondered why in contrast hundreds of billions of annual deficits up to nearly a trillion deficit, and 15, 17, perhaps 20 trillion of national debt don’t seem to phase the same taxpayer referred to?

Internal Investigation

Nor did we turn a blind eye to the past. On the contrary, we invested enormous efforts to achieve as much clarity as possible about whether, and to what extent, Credit Suisse employees had violated U.S. laws or helped clients do so. Credit Suisse asked external counsel to investigate any instances of past improper conduct fully. That investigation was broad and deep.

The U.S. law firm King & Spalding and the Swiss law firm Schellenberg Wittmer led the investigation, with help from a major accounting firm. The investigation reviewed all aspects of the Bank’s Swiss-based private banking business with U.S. customers. It involved more than 100 interviews of Credit Suisse and Clariden Leu personnel, from line-level private bankers to senior leaders of the Bank. The investigation reviewed the conduct of bankers across the Swiss private bank who had a number of U.S. clients or traveled to the United States.

The investigation identified evidence of violations of Bank policy centered on a small group of Swiss-based private bankers. That conduct centered on a group of private bankers within a desk of 15 to 20 private bankers at any given time who were focused on larger accounts of U.S. residents. Most of the improper activity was focused on some private bankers who traveled to the United States once or twice a year; otherwise, the investigation found only scattered evidence of improper conduct.

The investigation did not find any evidence that senior executives of Credit Suisse knew these bankers were apparently helping U.S. customers hide income and assets. To the contrary, the evidence showed that some Swiss-based private bankers went to great lengths to disguise their bad conduct from Credit Suisse executive management.

Cooperation with U.S. Authorities

Credit Suisse has consistently cooperated with the investigations led by the Department of Justice, the SEC, and this Subcommittee, going to the greatest extent permissible by Swiss law to provide information to investigating U.S. authorities.

Since early 2011, Credit Suisse has produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, including translations of foreign-language documents. Our representatives have met with the Department of Justice to help them understand the information we provided and to describe the findings of our internal investigation and the Bank’s various compliance efforts.

Credit Suisse has also provided briefings to officials from the U.S. government, including the SEC and this Subcommittee. That includes more than 100 hours briefing the Subcommittee staff on details of the private banking business and the internal investigation and thousands more hours answering written questions from Subcommittee staff. Specifically, Credit Suisse produced over 580,000 pages of documents, provided 11 detailed briefings to the Subcommittee staff in all-day, or multi-day, sessions, provided 12 substantive written submissions, and made 17 witnesses available from both the United States and Switzerland, including the Bank’s General Counsel, co-heads of the Private Bank and Wealth Management Division, and the CEO.

In the February 21, 2014 Press Release by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “Credit Suisse Agrees to Pay $196 Million and Admits Wrongdoing in Providing Unregistered Services to U.S. Clients“, Credit Suisse agreed to pay $196 million and admit wrongdoing to settle the SEC’s charges. According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Credit Suisse provided cross-border securities services to thousands of U.S. clients and collected fees totaling approximately $82 million without adhering to the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. Credit Suisse relationship managers traveled to the U.S. to solicit clients, provide investment advice, and induce securities transactions. These relationship managers were not registered to provide brokerage or advisory services, nor were they affiliated with a registered entity. The relationship managers also communicated with clients in the U.S. through overseas e-mails and phone calls.

The 175-page bipartisan staff report released Tuesday February 25 outlines how Credit Suisse engaged in similar conduct from at least 2001 to 2008, sending Swiss bankers into the United States to recruit U.S. customers, opening Swiss accounts that were not disclosed to U.S. authorities, including accounts opened in the name of offshore shell entities, and servicing Swiss accounts here in the United States without leaving a paper trail.

Senator Carl Levin Statement

In his statement summary of the investigation of Credit Suisse, Senator Levin stated:

“…A bipartisan report we are releasing today cites chapter and verse of the failure to collect the taxes owed and to hold accountable the U.S. persons who evaded their tax obligations and the tax haven banks who helped them. To lay bare the problems, our report uses a detailed case study involving Credit Suisse.

“What we found was that Credit Suisse had been holding back about how bad the problem was at the bank. At its peak, in Switzerland, Credit Suisse had over 22,000 U.S. customers with accounts containing more than 12 billion Swiss francs, which translates into $10 to $12 billion U.S. dollars. Nearly 1,500 accounts were opened in the name of offshore shell companies to hide U.S. ownership. Another nearly 2,000 were opened at Clariden Leu, Credit Suisse’s own little private bank. Almost 10,000 were serviced by a special Credit Suisse branch at the Zurich airport which enabled clients to fly in to do their banking without leaving airport grounds.

“Although Credit Suisse policy was to concentrate its U.S. client accounts in Switzerland at a Swiss desk called SALN, which had about 15 bankers trained in U.S. regulatory and tax requirements, that policy was largely ignored. In 2008, over 1,800 bankers spread throughout the bank in Switzerland handled one or more U.S. accounts. One U.S. client told the Subcommittee about visiting the bank’s main offices in Zurich. The client was ushered into a remotely controlled elevator with no floor buttons, and escorted to a bare room with white walls, all dramatizing the bank’s focus on secrecy. The client opened an account after being told the bank did not require completion of the W-9; without that form, the account was not reported to U.S. authorities. In later visits, the client was offered cash withdrawals and credit cards to draw from the Swiss account while in the United States, and the client always signed a form ordering that the Credit Suisse account statements be immediately shredded.

“But the Swiss bankers didn’t stay in Switzerland. Like UBS, Credit Suisse bankers travelled across the United States. Ten SALN bankers alone took more than 170 U.S. trips from 2001 to 2008, to look for new clients and service existing accounts. Credit Suisse arranged for them to host tables at the annual Swiss Ball in New York and to host golf tournaments in Florida to prospect for wealthy clients. Some also met with as many as 30 to 40 existing U.S. clients in a single trip to attend to their banking needs.

“We learned of one Swiss banker who met with a U.S. client over breakfast at a U.S. luxury hotel, and slipped the client bank account statements in between the pages of a Sports Illustrated magazine. Although none of the Swiss bankers were registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, many provided broker-dealer and investment advisory services for U.S. clients, resulting in the > $196 million fine that Credit Suisse < paid last week. Some Swiss bankers also advised U.S. clients on how to structure cash transactions to avoid filing reports of cash transactions over $10,000 as required by U.S. law. Other Swiss bankers helped U.S. clients set up offshore shell corporations to hold their accounts and hide the ownership trail. Some bankers lied on visa applications when they entered the United States, saying the purpose of their visit was tourism when in fact it was business.

“Once UBS’s misconduct was exposed, Credit Suisse initiated a series of so-called Exit Projects to close its U.S. client accounts in Switzerland. Those projects took five years, until 2013, to complete. In the end, the bank verified accounts for about 3,500 out of the 22,000 U.S. clients as compliant with U.S. tax law, meaning they were disclosed to the IRS. The bank closed accounts for the other 18,900 U.S. customers. It is clear that the vast majority – up to 95 percent – were undeclared, meaning hidden from Uncle Sam.

“So where are we now? Unlike UBS, U.S. enforcement action against Credit Suisse has stalled, even though the bank got a target letter three years ago in 2011. While seven of its bankers were indicted by U.S. prosecutors in 2011, none has stood trial and none has been the subject of a U.S. extradition request. Less than a handful of U.S. taxpayers with Credit Suisse accounts have been indicted.

“As you can see on this chart, of the 22,000 U.S. clients with Swiss accounts at Credit Suisse, the total number of accounts with U.S. names disclosed by the Swiss to the United States over five years hits a grand total of 238. That’s 238 out of 22,000, about one percent. Other Swiss banks with thousands of U.S. clients in Switzerland have, as far as we know, disclosed no names at all.

“By restricting itself to the treaty process, DOJ essentially handed over control of U.S. information requests to Swiss regulators and Swiss courts that rule on how they will be handled and have regularly elevated bank secrecy over bank disclosures.

“But the Swiss roadblocks didn’t end there. In 2009, right after the UBS battle, Switzerland agreed to amend the U.S.-Swiss tax treaty to replace its highly restrictive “tax fraud” standard with the somewhat less restrictive “relevance” standard. But the Swiss also insisted that the less restrictive disclosure standard be used only for information requests regarding Swiss accounts in existence after the amendments were signed on September 23, 2009. U.S. negotiators went along, and produced a new treaty standard that may be useful prospectively, but can’t be used for potentially tens of thousands of Swiss accounts employed for U.S. tax evasion before 2009. The end result is that the tax evaders and the Swiss banks who helped them may get away with wrongdoing.

“Here’s another rigged game. The U.S.-Swiss extradition treaty is supposed to enable each country to obtain the transfer of a criminal defendant from the other country. But that treaty has an exception giving the Swiss the discretion to deny an extradition request for a person accused of a tax offense. DOJ has indicted 38 Swiss banking and other professionals for aiding and abetting U.S. tax evasion. The indictment of the seven Credit Suisse bankers is already three years old. But 34 of those 38 defendants have yet to stand trial. Instead, most are openly residing in Switzerland. One Swiss banker who left Switzerland to vacation in Italy was recently arrested and is here and set to stand trial in October, but he’s the exception. It is bad enough that the Swiss can deny extradition for persons aiding and abetting U.S. tax evasion; it is inexplicable that the United States hasn’t even made extradition requests.”

According to the Subcommittee report, after the UBS scandal broke, Credit Suisse began a series of Exit Projects, and took five years to close Swiss accounts held by 18,900 U.S. clients, leaving just 3,500 U.S. customers still with the bank. Credit Suisse also conducted an internal investigation, but produced no report and identified no leadership failures that allowed the bank to become involved in tax evasion. Despite, in 2011, indictment of seven of its bankers and a DOJ letter notifying the bank that it was itself an investigation target, Credit Suisse has not been held legally accountable by DOJ, and none of its bankers has stood trial.

Despite earlier testimony pledging to use important U.S. legal tools such as grand jury subpoenas and John Doe summonses to obtain the names of U.S. tax evaders, the investigation found that DOJ had failed to use them, choosing instead to file treaty requests with little success. In the past five years, DOJ has not sought to enforce a single grand jury subpoena against a Swiss bank, has not assisted in the filing of a single John Doe summons to obtain client names or account information in Switzerland, and has prosecuted only one Swiss bank, Wegelin &Co., despite more than a dozen under investigation for facilitating U.S. tax evasion. In addition, over the past five years, DOJ has obtained information, including U.S. client names, for only 238 undeclared Swiss accounts out of the tens of thousands opened offshore.

Subcommittee Findings

The Subcommittee investigation reaches several findings of fact:

(1) Bank Practices that Facilitated U.S. Tax Evasion. From at least 2001 to 2008, Credit Suisse employed banking practices that facilitated tax evasion by U.S. customers, including by opening undeclared Swiss accounts for individuals, opening accounts in the name of offshore shell entities to mask their U.S. ownership, and sending Swiss bankers to the United States to recruit new U.S. customers and service existing Swiss accounts without creating paper trails. At its peak, Credit Suisse had over 22,000 U.S. customers with Swiss accounts containing assets that exceeded 12 billion Swiss francs.

(2) Inadequate Bank Response. Credit Suisse’s efforts to close undeclared Swiss accounts opened by U.S. customers took more than five years, failed to identify how many were undeclared accounts hidden from U.S. authorities, and fell short of identifying any leadership failures or lessons learned from its legally-suspect U.S. cross border business.

(3) Lax U.S. Enforcement. Despite the passage of five years, U.S. law enforcement has failed to prosecute more than a dozen Swiss banks that facilitated U.S. tax evasion, failed to take legal action against thousands of U.S. persons whose names and hidden Swiss accounts were disclosed by UBS, and failed to utilize available U.S. legal means to obtain the names of tens of thousands of additional U.S. persons whose identities are still being concealed by the Swiss.

(4) Swiss Secrecy. Since 2008, Swiss officials have worked to preserve Swiss bank secrecy by intervening in U.S. criminal investigations to restrict document production by Swiss banks, pressuring the United States to construct a program for issuing non-prosecution agreements to hundreds of Swiss banks while excusing those banks from disclosing U.S. client names, enacting legislation creating new barriers to U.S. treaty requests seeking U.S. client names, and managing to limit the actual disclosure of U.S. client names to only a few hundred names over five years, despite the tens of thousands of undeclared Swiss accounts opened by U.S. clients evading U.S. taxes.

Subcommittee Recommendations:

(1) Improve Prosecution of Tax Haven Banks and Hidden Offshore Account Holders. To ensure accountability, deter misconduct, and collect tax revenues, the Department of Justice should use available U.S. legal means, including enforcing grand jury subpoenas and John Doe summons in U.S. courts, to obtain the names of U.S. taxpayers with undeclared accounts at tax haven banks. DOJ should hold accountable tax haven banks that aided and abetted U.S. tax evasion, and take legal action against U.S. taxpayers to collect unpaid taxes on billions of dollars in offshore assets.

(2) Increase Transparency of Tax Haven Banks That Impede U.S. Tax Enforcement. U.S. regulators should use their existing authority to institute a probationary period of increased reporting requirements for, or to limit the opening of new accounts by, tax haven banks that enter into deferred prosecution agreements, non-prosecution agreements, settlements, or other concluding actions with law enforcement for facilitating U.S. tax evasion, taking into consideration repetitive or cumulative misconduct.

(3) Streamline John Doe Summons. Congress should amend U.S. tax laws to streamline the use of John Doe summons procedures to uncover the names of taxpayers using offshore accounts and other means to evade U.S. taxes, including by allowing a court to approve more than one John Doe summons related to the same tax investigation.

(4) Close FATCA Loopholes. To obtain systematic disclosure of undeclared offshore accounts used to evade U.S. taxes, the U.S. Treasury and IRS should close gaping loopholes in FATCA regulations that have no statutory basis, including provisions that allow financial institutions to ignore account information stored on paper, and allow foreign financial institutions to treat offshore shell entities as non-U.S. entities even when beneficially owned and controlled by U.S. persons.

(5) Ratify Revised Swiss Tax Treaty. The U.S. Senate should promptly ratify the 2009 Protocol to the U.S.-Switzerland tax treaty to take advantage of improved disclosure standards.

The DOJ statement described the framework of the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements: every Swiss bank not currently under formal criminal investigation concerning offshore activities will be able to provide the cooperation necessary to resolve potential criminal matters with the DOJ. Currently, the department is actively investigating the Swiss-based activities of 14 banks. Those banks, referred to as Category 1 banks in the Program, are expressly excluded from the Program. Category 1 Banks against which the DoJ has initiated a criminal investigation as of 29 August 2013 (date of program publication).

Swiss banks that have committed violations of U.S. tax laws and wished to cooperate and receive a non-prosecution agreement under the Program, known as Category 2 banks, had until Dec. 31, 2013 to submit a letter of intent to join the program, and the category sought.

To be eligible for a non-prosecution agreement, Category 2 banks must meet several requirements, which include agreeing to pay penalties based on the amount held in undeclared U.S. accounts, fully disclosing their cross-border activities, and providing detailed information on an account-by-account basis for accounts in which U.S. taxpayers have a direct or indirect interest. Providing detailed information regarding other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed is also a stipulation for eligibility. The Swiss Federal Department of Finance has released a > model order and guidance note < that will allow Swiss banks to cooperate with the DOJ and fulfill the requirements of the Program.

Regarding which category to file under, the DOJ replied: “Each eligible Swiss bank should carefully analyze whether it is a category 2, 3 or 4 bank. While it may appear more desirable for a bank to attempt to position itself as a category 3 or 4 bank to receive a non-target letter, no non-target letter will be issued to any bank as to which the Department has information of criminal culpability. If the Department learns of criminal conduct by the bank after a non-target letter has been issued, the bank is not protected from prosecution for that conduct. If the bank has hidden or misrepresented its activities to obtain a non-target letter, it is exposed to increased criminal liability.”

Category 2

Banks against which the DoJ has not initiated a criminal investigation but have reasons to believe that that they have violated US tax law in their dealings with clients are subject to fines of on a flat-rate basis. Set scale of fine rates (%) applied to the untaxed US assets of the bank in question:

– Existing accounts on 01.08.2008: 20%
– New accounts opened between 01.08.2008 and 28.02.2009: 30%
– New accounts after 28.02.2009: 50%

Category 2 banks must delivery of information on cross-border business with US clients, name and function of the employees and third parties concerned, anonymised data on terminated client relationships including statistics as to where the accounts re-domiciled.

Category 3

Banks have no reason to believe that they have violated US tax law in their dealings with clients and that can have this demonstrated by an independent third party. A category 3 bank must provide to the IRS the data on its total US assets under management and confirmation of an effective compliance programme in force.

Category 4

Banks are a local business in accordance with the FATCA definition.

Independence of Qualified Attorney or Accountant Examiner

Regarding the requirement of the independence of the qualified attorney or accountant examiner, the DOJ stated that the examiner “is not an advocate, agent, or attorney for the bank, nor is he or she an advocate or agent for the government. He or she must provide a neutral, dispassionate analysis of the bank’s activities. Communications with the independent examiner should not be considered confidential or protected by any privilege or immunity.” The attorney / accountant’s report must be substantive, detailed, and address the requirements set out in the DOJ’s non-prosecution Program. The DOJ stated that “Banks are required to cooperate fully and “come clean” to obtain the protection that is offered under the Program.”

In the ‘bottom line’ words of the DOJ: “Each eligible Swiss bank should carefully weigh the benefits of coming forward, and the risks of not taking this opportunity to be fully forthcoming. A bank that has engaged in or facilitated U.S. tax-related or monetary transaction crimes has a unique opportunity to resolve its criminal liability under the Program. Those that have criminal exposure but fail to come forward or participate but are not fully forthcoming do so at considerable risk.”

106 Swiss banks (of approximately 300 total) filed the requisite letter of intent to join the Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters (the “Program“) by the December 31, 2013 deadline. Renown attorney Jack Townsend reported on his blog on February 14th provided a list of 49 Swiss banks that had publicly announced the intention to submit the letter of intent, as well as each bank’s category for entry: six announced seeking category 4 status, eight for category 3, thirty-five for category 2. 106 was a large jump from the mid-December report by the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (“SwissInfo”) that only a few had filed for non prosecution with the DOJ’s program (e.g. Migros Bank, Bank COOP, Valiant, Berner Kantonalbank and Vontobel).

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

Staying ahead of client demands in the annuity product game is no simple feat for even the most informed of financial advisors, and the latest trend may prove even more crucial to successful advising—it involves not a new product or rider, but an entire market for annuities.

Newly developed uniform transfer standards and increased availability have caused so-called “secondary market annuities” to surge in popularity amongst clients in their quest to find financial products with above-average interest rates to supplement retirement income. What once was a niche market is gaining traction with the ordinary investor, and it is time for all advisors to get up to speed.

Read the full analysis of Professor William Byrnes and Robert Bloink at Think Advisor !

Authoritative and easy-to-use, 2014 Tax Facts on Insurance & Employee Benefitsshows you how the tax law and regulations are relevant to your insurance, employee benefits, and financial planning practices. Often complex tax law and regulations are explained in clear, understandable language. Pertinent planning points are provided throughout.

Organized in a convenient Q&A format to speed you to the information you need, 2014 Tax Facts on Insurance & Employee Benefits delivers the latest guidance on:

Estate & Gift Tax Planning

Roth IRAs

HSAs

Capital Gains, Qualifying Dividends

Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Under IRC Section 409A

And much more!

Key updates for 2014:

Important federal income and estate tax developments impacting insurance and employee benefits including changes from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

More than thirty new Planning Points, written by practitioners for practitioners, in the following areas:

Life Insurance

Health Insurance

Estate and Gift Tax

Deferred Compensation

Individual Retirement Plans

Plus, you’re kept up-to-date with online supplements for critical developments. Written and reviewed by practicing professionals who are subject matter experts in their respective topics, Tax Facts is the practical resource you can rely on.

The Florida and Texas Bankers Associations now challenge those reporting requirements, alleging that the regulations violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Bankers Associations contend … that the IRS got the economics of its decision wrong and that the requirements will cause far more harm to banks than anticipated. Because the Service reasonably concluded that the regulations will improve U.S tax compliance, deter foreign and domestic tax evasion, impose a minimal reporting burden on banks, and not cause any rational actor – other than a tax evader – to withdraw his funds from U.S. accounts, the Court upholds the regulations …

The IRS is on a constant quest to bridge the so-called “tax gap” – that is, the $450 billion gap between what taxpayers owe the government and what they actually pay. Part of this gap is caused by a lack of taxpayer candor regarding assets retained in off-shore accounts. While U.S. citizens and residents owe taxes on the interest meted out by foreign banks, much of those off-shore earnings go unreported and undetected.

Honesty, however, may not be every American taxpayer’s greatest virtue. As a result, the Government also relies on third-party reporting, matching, and verification to confirm the correct amount of taxpayer liability and to encourage accurate self-reporting.

As a result, the United States has entered into treaties with at least 70 foreign governments to provide for the exchange of tax information upon request.

Reciprocity is the key to success in such treaties. If the United States does not gather and report tax information for foreign accountholders, then other countries have little incentive to provide us with similar information.

In the IRS’s 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Agency put forward regulations that would require U.S. banks to report the interest paid to all non-resident aliens. The Agency claimed that such regulations were warranted as a result of the “growing global consensus” that “cooperative [tax] information exchange[s]” were necessary to apprehend tax cheats. “[R]outine reporting” of non-resident tax information would, it said, “strengthen the United States exchange of information program” and thus “help to improve voluntary compliance” with existing tax laws by U.S. taxpayers.

The Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, for example, noted that “America should not be a haven for international tax evaders.”

While the United States has exchange agreements with only 70 countries, the proposed amendments required reporting for all 196 countries worldwide.

Commenters also worried about the confidentiality of the information collected and the potential risk of “capital flight” – that is, non-residents’ closing their accounts and withdrawing their money due to the new regulations.

The final rule, which was issued in 2012, responded to these comments by preserving the core of the amendment while somewhat narrowing and clarifying the regulations. 77 Fed. Reg. 23,391. Pursuant to the final rule, effective January 1, 2013, banks are now required to report interest payments to non-resident aliens, but only for aliens from countries with which the United States has an exchange agreement. The reports utilize the same forms already employed to report Canadian non-resident income, Forms 1042 and 1042-S.

In addition, the IRS responded to the various concerns raised in the comments it received. As noted, the rule narrowed the reporting requirement to countries with which the United States has an exchange agreement. The Service also addressed confidentiality questions by noting that “all of the information exchange agreements to which the United States is a party require that the information exchanged under the agreement be treated and protected as secret by the foreign government.” Id. In terms of capital flight, the IRS reasoned that “these regulations should not significantly impact the investment and savings decisions of the vast majority of non-residents who are aware of and understand these safeguards and existing law and practice.” Their information, after all, would remain confidential and could only detrimentally affect them if they were evading their countries’ tax laws.

While the IRS conceded that the regulations would affect many small banks, it determined that they would not have a “significant economic impact” because banks have already “developed the systems to perform . . . withholding and reporting” for U.S. citizens, residents, and Canadian citizens. “U.S. financial institutions can,” therefore, “use their existing W-8 information” – which contains data on residency and citizenship for all accountholders – “to produce Form 1042-S disclosures for the relevant nonresident alien individual account holders. Nearly all U.S. banks and other financial institutions have automated systems to produce” those forms.

The IRS admits that it does not know exactly how much money non-resident aliens have deposited in U.S. banks. It notes, however, that gathering that information is one critical point of the regulations – to figure out how much money foreign residents hold in U.S. accounts and how much interest they are earning. As the Government highlights, it makes little sense to require an agency to possess the data it wishes to collect before enacting new data-collecting requirements.

Instead of using exact data, the IRS estimated, based on a mountain of existing information from the Treasury Department, that non-resident alien deposits in U.S. banks amounted to no more than $400 billion. Plaintiffs argue that such an estimate does not comport with the APA. But nothing in the APA forbids a government agency from estimating.

In addition – as explained more extensively below – the IRS’s estimate of how much money could be affected was not central to its decision to proceed with these regulations. The estimate was not even published in the Federal Register; it appears only in the administrative record. The IRS was unconcerned because it had determined that very little of this money would be affected – namely, because these regulations would not deter any rational actor other than a tax fraud from using U.S. banks.

No one with a passport would gainsay that the 70 covered countries diverge significantly in, inter alia, their populations, forms of government, and financial systems. For all their differences, however, those countries have one very important similarity to Canada: each has entered into an exchange treaty with the United States

4. Capital Flight

At the heart of the Bankers Associations’ argument – albeit buried somewhat in their brief – is the contention that the regulations should not have been issued given the negative impact they may have on banks. Plaintiffs claim that the IRS “disregarded” a flood of comments arguing that the new regulations would cause non-residents to withdraw their deposits en masse and thereby trigger substantial and harmful capital flight. The IRS, however, did not ignore those comments; indeed, it dedicated a majority of the preamble to addressing concerns about capital flight.

Many of the comments on this topic related to the privacy of customers’ tax information. In its preamble, the IRS noted that some comments “expressed concerns that the information required to be reported under th[e] regulations might be misused” or disclosed to rogue governments. Those privacy concerns, commenters worried, might trigger an exodus of foreign funds. To address those fears, the IRS described in great detail the privacy protections that were in place to safeguard account information, including the fact that “all of the information exchange agreements to which the United States is a party require that the information exchanged under the agreement be treated and protected as secret by the foreign government” as well as by the IRS. As a result of those protections, the Government concluded that the “regulations should not significantly impact the investment and savings decisions of the vast majority of non-residents.”

Plaintiffs raise one additional, related issue: They claim that the IRS ignored the massive capital flight that took place after the Canadian reporting requirements became effective in January 2000. The IRS, by contrast, contends that the alleged Canadian capital flight is a fiction: While the amount of Canadian interest-bearing deposits may have dipped after the reporting requirements were issued, they climbed back up shortly after that.

Commentary update: The Texas Bankers Association has reported that $500 million of foreign deposits has expatriated from Texas banks, and the Texas Bankers Association will file an Appeal to this decision.

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

The February 20, 2014 release of 565 total pages of commentary and amendments to the FATCA Regulations (these final regs issued January 17, 2013) included 336 pages of changes to the withholding and documentation rules of Chapters 3 and 61 – over 50 discrete amendments and clarifications in total. Treasury stated that it has taken “into account certain stakeholder suggestions regarding ways to further reduce burdens consistent with the compliance objectives of the statute”.

Key amendments and clarifications include:

(i) the accommodation of direct reporting to the IRS, rather than to withholding agents, by certain entities regarding their substantial U.S. owners;

Coordination of FATCA with Pre-Existing Reporting and Withholding Rules

The amendments also harmonize the requirements contained in pre-FATCA rules under chapters 3 and 61 and section 3406 of the Internal Revenue Code with those under FATCA.

Chapter 3 contains reporting and withholding rules relating to payments of certain U.S. source income (e.g., dividends on stock of U.S. companies) to non-US persons.

Chapter 61 and section 3406 address the reporting and withholding requirements for various types of payments made to certain U.S. persons (U.S. non-exempt recipients).

The amended regulations coordinate these pre-FATCA regimes with the requirements under FATCA to integrate these rules, reduce burden (including certain duplicative information reporting obligations), and conform the due diligence, withholding, and reporting rules under these provisions to the extent appropriate in light of the separate objectives of each chapter or section. The changes relate to four key areas:

I. Rules for Identification of Payees.

Documentation requirements are central to identification of payees under the chapter 3 and FATCA reporting and withholding regimes.

The documentation requirements for withholding agents and foreign financial institutions (FFIs) under FATCA differ in certain respects from the corresponding documentation requirements for withholding agents under chapter 3. The amendments to the regulations remove inconsistencies in the chapter 3 and FATCA documentation requirements (including inconsistencies regarding presumption rules in the absence of valid documentation) based, in part, on stakeholder comments.

II. Coordination of the Withholding Requirements under Chapter 3, Section 3406, and FATCA.

Chapter 3, section 3406, and FATCA require a payor to withhold under certain, potentially overlapping, circumstances. These temporary regulations provide rules to ensure that payments are not subject to withholding under both chapters 3 and FATCA, or under both section 3406 and FATCA.

III. Coordination of Chapter 61 and FATCA Regarding Information Reporting with Respect to U.S. Persons.

FATCA generally requires FFIs to report certain information with respect to their U.S. accounts. In some cases, this reporting may be duplicative of the information required to be reported on Form 1099 with respect to the same U.S. accounts when the holders of such accounts are U.S. non-exempt recipients or the benefits of Form 1099 reporting to increasing voluntary compliance is not outweighed by the burden of overlapping information reporting requirements with respect to the same accounts.

Form 1099 Duplicative Reporting

Under existing FATCA regulations, certain FFIs may be able to mitigate duplicative reporting under FATCA and chapter 61 by electing to satisfy their FATCA reporting obligations by reporting U.S. account holders on Form 1099 instead of reporting the account holder on the Form 8966 as required under FATCA. This election, however, is not expected to relieve burden for FFIs that are required to report on U.S. accounts pursuant to local laws implementing a Model 1 intergovernmental agreement (IGA). As previewed in Notice 2013-69, to further reduce burdens and mitigate instances of duplicative reporting under FATCA and chapter 61, these amendments generally relieve non-U.S. payors from chapter 61 reporting to the extent the non-

U.S. payor reports on the account in accordance with the FATCA regulations or an applicable IGA.

Chapter 61 Duplicative Reporting

The amendments do not provide a similar exception to reporting under chapter 61 for U.S. payors. While some of the information reported by FFIs under FATCA on Form 8966 and under chapter 61 on Form 1099 may overlap, there are also significant differences. Most notably, the requirement under chapter 61 to furnish a copy of Form 1099 to the payee facilitates voluntary compliance, and there is no equivalent requirement for payee statements under FATCA. Moreover, U.S. payors generally have well-established systems for reporting and are subject to reporting on a broader range of payments under chapter 61 than non-U.S. payors. In light of these differences, the benefits of chapter 61 reporting by U.S. payors to the voluntary compliance system outweigh the reduction in burden that would be achieved by eliminating this reporting for U.S. payors that report on the same account under FATCA or an applicable IGA.

New, Limited Exception for Payments Not Subject to Withholding under Chapter 3

The amendments provide a new, limited exception to reporting under chapter 61 for both U.S. payors and non-U.S. payors that are FFIs required to report under chapter 4 or an applicable IGA with respect to payments that are not subject to withholding under chapter 3 or section 3406 and that are made to an account holder that is a presumed (but not known) U.S. non-exempt recipient.

FFIs that are required to report under chapter 4 or an applicable IGA will provide information regarding account holders who are presumed U.S. non-exempt recipients. Moreover, such presumed U.S. non-exempt recipients may not actually be U.S. persons for whom the recipient copy of Form 1099 would be relevant to facilitate voluntary compliance. As a result, the IRS and Treasury believe that reporting under chapter 61 should be eliminated on payments to account holders who are presumed U.S. non-exempt recipients and for whom there is FATCA reporting.

New, Limited Exception for Stock Transfer Agents

The amendments provide a new, limited exception from reporting under chapter 61 for U.S. payors acting as stock transfer agents or paying agents of distributions from certain passive foreign investment companies (PFICs) made to U.S. persons. This exception is based, in part, on comments suggesting ways to reduce duplicative reporting with respect to PFIC shareholders. This exception would reduce burden while not significantly impacting taxpayer compliance.

IV. Conforming Changes to the Regulations Implementing the Various Regimes.

The amendmentsinclude numerous conforming changes, including:

(i) revising the examples in chapters 3 and 61 to take into account that payments in those examples may now be subject to FATCA;

(ii) ensuring that defined terms in the FATCA regulations that are used in chapters 3 and 61 are appropriately cross-referenced; and

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual published

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

Non-U.S. residents may contact Nicole Hahn, LN International Accounts Manger, by e-mail or phone to order: Nicole.Hahn@lexisnexis.com or +1 518.487.3004.

This second edition of the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance has been vastly improved based on over thirty in-house workshops and interviews with tier 1 banks, with company and trusts service providers, with government revenue departments, and with central banks. The enterprises are headquartered in the Caribbean, Latin America, Asia, Europe, and the United States, as are the revenue departments and the central bank staff interviewed.

Several new contributing authors joined the FATCA Expert Contributor team this edition. This second edition has been expanded from 25 to 34 chapters, with 150 new pages of regulatory and compliance analysis based upon industry feedback of internal challenges with systems implementation. The previous 25 chapters have been substantially updated, including many more practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. The nine new chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

This second edition will provide the financial enterprise?s FATCA compliance officer the tools for developing and maintaining a best practices compliance strategy, starting with determining what information is needed for planning the meetings with outside FATCA experts. This Guide may be leveraged in combination with the tools for identification of U.S. indicia of LexisNexis Risk Solutions (http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/).

Chapter 1 Background and Current Status of FATCA
Chapter 2 Practical Considerations for Developing a FATCA Compliance Program
Chapter 3 FATCA Compliance and Integration of Information Technology
Chapter 4 Financial Institution Account Remediation
Chapter 5 FBAR and Form 8938 Reporting and List of International Taxpayer IRS Forms
Chapter 6 Determining U.S. Ownership of Foreign Entities
Chapter 7 Foreign Financial Institutions
Chapter 8 Non-Financial Foreign Entities
Chapter 9 FATCA and the Offshore Trust Industry
Chapter 10 FATCA and the Insurance Industry
Chapter 11 Withholding and Qualified Intermediary
Chapter 12 FATCA Withholding Compliance
Chapter 13 ”Withholdable” Payments
Chapter 14 Determining and Documenting the Payee
Chapter 15 Framework of Intergovernmental Agreements
Chapter 16 Analysis of Current Intergovernmental Agreements
Chapter 17 European Union Cross Border Information Reporting
Chapter 18 The OECD Role in Exchange of Information: The Trace Project, FATCA, and Beyond
Chapter 19 Germany-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and its Implementation
Chapter 20 Ireland-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and its Implementation
Chapter 21 Japan-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and its Implementation
Chapter 22 Mexico-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and its Implementation
Chapter 23 Switzerland-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and its Implementation
Chapter 24 The United Kingdom-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement and its Implementation
Chapter 25 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Brazil
Chapter 26 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for The British Virgin Islands
Chapter 27 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Canada
Chapter 28 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Spain
Chapter 29 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for China
Chapter 30 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Netherlands
Chapter 31 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Luxembourg
Chapter 32 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Russia
Chapter 33 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for Turkey
Chapter 34 Exchange of Tax Information and the Impact of FATCA for India

On February 20, 2014 the IRS issued many changes to the FATCA Final Regulations via newly released Temporary Regulations. These temporary regulations reflect changes made to the final regulations to coordinate the chapter 4 regulations with the temporary regulations published under chapters 3 and 61 and section 3406 of the Code modifications to the final regulations to further harmonize them with the IGAs. Several of the changes made by these temporary regulations were previewed in Notice 2013-69, the draft FFI agreement, and certain of the draft IRS forms released throughout 2013.

These regulations modify the definition of a U.S. branch treated as a U.S. person. In addition, the definitions of financial institution, limited branch, limited FFI, and substantial U.S. owner are modified to ensure coordination between the FFI agreement and these temporary regulations.

H. Harmonization with IGAs

III. Comments and Changes to §1.1471-2–Requirement to Deduct and Withhold Tax on Withholdable Payments to Certain FFIs

B. Determination of payee’s status–determination of whether the payment is made to a QI, WP, or WT

C. Rules for reliably associating a payment with a withholding certificate or other appropriate documentation

1. Requirements for Validity of Certificates–Withholding Certificate of an Intermediary, Flow-Through Entity, or U.S. Branch (Form W-8IMY)–In General

2. Requirements for Validity of Certificates–Withholding Certificate of an Intermediary, Flow-Through Entity, or U.S. Branch (Form W-8IMY)–Withholding Statement–Special Requirements for an FFI Withholding Statement

2. Reporting Requirements In General–Financial Institution Required to Report an Account–Requirement to Identify the GIIN of a Branch that Maintains an Account

3. Reporting Requirements In General–Financial Institution Required to Report an Account–Reporting by Participating FFIs and Registered Deemed-Compliant FFIs (including QIs, WPs, WTs, and Certain U.S. Branches Not Treated as U.S. Persons) for Accounts of Nonparticipating FFIs (Transitional)

4. Reporting Requirements In General–Special U.S. Account Reporting Rules for U.S. Payors–Special Reporting Rule for U.S. Payors Other Than U.S. Branches

5. Reporting Requirements in General–Special U.S. Account Reporting Rules for U.S. Payors–Special Reporting Rules for U.S. Branches Not Treated as U.S. Persons

6. Reporting on Recalcitrant Account Holders–Extensions in Filing

7. Treatment of a Disregarded Entity

D. Expanded affiliated group requirements

E. Verification–IRS review of compliance

F. Event of default

VI. Comments and Changes to §1.1471-5–Definitions Applicable to Section 1471

A. U.S. accounts–account holder–in general; grantor trust

B. Financial accounts–value of interest determined, directly or indirectly, primarily by reference to assets that give rise (or could give rise) to withholdable payments, and return earned on the interest (including upon a sale, exchange, or redemption) determined, directly or indirectly, primarily by reference to one or more investment entities or passive NFFEs

C. Definition of financial institution

1. In General

2. Holding Financial Assets for Others as a Substantial Portion of its Business–Income Attributable to Holding Financial Assets and Related Financial Services

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

Like this:

When William Byrnes returned to the United States in 1998 to establish the International Finance and Taxation program leveraging online communication technologies, both international tax programs and distance learning programs were in their infancy. Through engaging a renown and talented faculty of industry professionals, and the support of an immensely engaged student body from professional and financial service firms, the international tax program blossomed over the past 15 years to become a cutting edge industry leader that it is today. Just recently, National Law Journal wrote “Perhaps no one in legal academia has more experience with online master’s degrees than William Byrnes, Associate Dean for Graduate and Distance Education Programs at Thomas Jefferson School of Law.” (May 20, 2013)

Each year William Byrnes chooses fourteen international tax students from the graduate online program to assist within tax compendium published by LexisNexis, WoltersKluwer, National Underwriter Co. (the Tax Facts series), and Merten’s Federal Income Taxation. By the time these students have reached international alumni status, many have developed into authors with several chapter and article citations.

William Byrnes created this graduate program around the needs of tax and financial professionals looking for advancement and efficiency for their career, be that to attract new clientele with global issues, better manage the budgets of outside international counsel, or to enhance their CV for the next round of promotion. Explore an international tax & financial services career by listening to his interview responses, then interacting with him via Skype or Google Hangout.

The Internal Revenue Service today in its NewsWire (IR-2014-16) released its annual “Dirty Dozen” list of tax scams, reminding taxpayers to use caution during tax season to protect themselves against a wide range of schemes ranging from identity theft to return preparer fraud. The Dirty Dozen listing, compiled by the IRS each year, lists a variety of common scams taxpayers can encounter at any point during the year. But many of these schemes peak during filing season as people prepare their tax returns.

The following are the Dirty Dozen tax scams for 2014:

Identity Theft

Tax fraud through the use of identity theft tops this year’s Dirty Dozen list. Identity theft occurs when someone uses your personal information, such as your name, Social Security number (SSN) or other identifying information, without your permission, to commit fraud or other crimes. In many cases, an identity thief uses a legitimate taxpayer’s identity to fraudulently file a tax return and claim a refund.

The agency’s work on identity theft and refund fraud continues to grow, touching nearly every part of the organization. For the 2014 filing season, the IRS has expanded these efforts to better protect taxpayers and help victims.

The IRS has a special section on IRS.gov dedicated to identity theft issues, including YouTube videos, tips for taxpayers and an assistance guide. For victims, the information includes how to contact the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit. For other taxpayers, there are tips on how taxpayers can protect themselves against identity theft.

Taxpayers who believe they are at risk of identity theft due to lost or stolen personal information should contact the IRS immediately so the agency can take action to secure their tax account. Taxpayers can call the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit at 800-908-4490. More information can be found on the special identity protection page.

Pervasive Telephone Scams

The IRS has seen a recent increase in local phone scams across the country, with callers pretending to be from the IRS in hopes of stealing money or identities from victims.

These phone scams include many variations, ranging from instances from where callers say the victims owe money or are entitled to a huge refund. Some calls can threaten arrest and threaten a driver’s license revocation. Sometimes these calls are paired with follow-up calls from people saying they are from the local police department or the state motor vehicle department.

Characteristics of these scams can include:

Scammers use fake names and IRS badge numbers. They generally use common names and surnames to identify themselves.

Scammers may be able to recite the last four digits of a victim’s Social Security Number.

Scammers “spoof” or imitate the IRS toll-free number on caller ID to make it appear that it’s the IRS calling.

Scammers sometimes send bogus IRS emails to some victims to support their bogus calls.

Victims hear background noise of other calls being conducted to mimic a call site.

After threatening victims with jail time or a driver’s license revocation, scammers hang up and others soon call back pretending to be from the local police or DMV, and the caller ID supports their claim.

In another variation, one sophisticated phone scam has targeted taxpayers, including recent immigrants, throughout the country. Victims are told they owe money to the IRS and it must be paid promptly through a pre-loaded debit card or wire transfer. If the victim refuses to cooperate, they are then threatened with arrest, deportation or suspension of a business or driver’s license. In many cases, the caller becomes hostile and insulting.

If you get a phone call from someone claiming to be from the IRS, here’s what you should do: If you know you owe taxes or you think you might owe taxes, call the IRS at 1.800.829.1040. The IRS employees at that line can help you with a payment issue – if there really is such an issue.

If you know you don’t owe taxes or have no reason to think that you owe any taxes (for example, you’ve never received a bill or the caller made some bogus threats as described above), then call and report the incident to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484.

If you’ve been targeted by these scams, you should also contact the Federal Trade Commission and use their “FTC Complaint Assistant” at FTC.gov. Please add “IRS Telephone Scam” to the comments of your complaint.

Phishing

Phishing is a scam typically carried out with the help of unsolicited email or a fake website that poses as a legitimate site to lure in potential victims and prompt them to provide valuable personal and financial information. Armed with this information, a criminal can commit identity theft or financial theft.

If you receive an unsolicited email that appears to be from either the IRS or an organization closely linked to the IRS, such as the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS), report it by sending it to phishing@irs.gov.

It is important to keep in mind the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information. This includes any type of electronic communication, such as text messages and social media channels. The IRS has information online that can help you protect yourself from email scams.

False Promises of “Free Money” from Inflated Refunds

Scam artists routinely pose as tax preparers during tax time, luring victims in by promising large federal tax refunds or refunds that people never dreamed they were due in the first place.

Scam artists use flyers, advertisements, phony store fronts and even word of mouth to throw out a wide net for victims. They may even spread the word through community groups or churches where trust is high. Scammers prey on people who do not have a filing requirement, such as low-income individuals or the elderly. They also prey on non-English speakers, who may or may not have a filing requirement.

Scammers build false hope by duping people into making claims for fictitious rebates, benefits or tax credits. They charge good money for very bad advice. Or worse, they file a false return in a person’s name and that person never knows that a refund was paid.

Scam artists also victimize people with a filing requirement and due a refund by promising inflated refunds based on fictitious Social Security benefits and false claims for education credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), or the American Opportunity Tax Credit, among others.

The IRS sometimes hears about scams from victims complaining about losing their federal benefits, such as Social Security benefits, certain veteran’s benefits or low-income housing benefits. The loss of benefits was the result of false claims being filed with the IRS that provided false income amounts.

While honest tax preparers provide their customers a copy of the tax return they’ve prepared, victims of scam frequently are not given a copy of what was filed. Victims also report that the fraudulent refund is deposited into the scammer’s bank account. The scammers deduct a large “fee” before cutting a check to the victim, a practice not used by legitimate tax preparers.

The IRS reminds all taxpayers that they are legally responsible for what’s on their returns even if it was prepared by someone else. Taxpayers who buy into such schemes can end up being penalized for filing false claims or receiving fraudulent refunds.

Taxpayers should take care when choosing an individual or firm to prepare their taxes. Honest return preparers generally: ask for proof of income and eligibility for credits and deductions; sign returns as the preparer; enter their IRS Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN); provide the taxpayer a copy of the return.

Beware: Intentional mistakes of this kind can result in a $5,000 penalty.

Return Preparer Fraud

About 60 percent of taxpayers will use tax professionals this year to prepare their tax returns. Most return preparers provide honest service to their clients. But, some unscrupulous preparers prey on unsuspecting taxpayers, and the result can be refund fraud or identity theft.

It is important to choose carefully when hiring an individual or firm to prepare your return. This year, the IRS wants to remind all taxpayers that they should use only preparers who sign the returns they prepare and enter their IRS Preparer Tax Identification Numbers (PTINs).

The IRS also has a web page to assist taxpayers. For tips about choosing a preparer, details on preparer qualifications and information on how and when to make a complaint, visit www.irs.gov/chooseataxpro.

Remember: Taxpayers are legally responsible for what’s on their tax return even if it is prepared by someone else. Make sure the preparer you hire is up to the task.

IRS.gov has general information on reporting tax fraud. More specifically, you report abusive tax preparers to the IRS on Form 14157, Complaint: Tax Return Preparer. Download Form 14157 and fill it out or order by mail at 800-TAX FORM (800-829-3676). The form includes a return address.

Hiding Income Offshore

Over the years, numerous individuals have been identified as evading U.S. taxes by hiding income in offshore banks, brokerage accounts or nominee entities and then using debit cards, credit cards or wire transfers to access the funds. Others have employed foreign trusts, employee-leasing schemes, private annuities or insurance plans for the same purpose.

The IRS uses information gained from its investigations to pursue taxpayers with undeclared accounts, as well as the banks and bankers suspected of helping clients hide their assets overseas. The IRS works closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute tax evasion cases.

While there are legitimate reasons for maintaining financial accounts abroad, there are reporting requirements that need to be fulfilled. U.S. taxpayers who maintain such accounts and who do not comply with reporting requirements are breaking the law and risk significant penalties and fines, as well as the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Since 2009, tens of thousands of individuals have come forward voluntarily to disclose their foreign financial accounts, taking advantage of special opportunities to comply with the U.S. tax system and resolve their tax obligations. And, with new foreign account reporting requirements being phased in over the next few years, hiding income offshore is increasingly more difficult.

At the beginning of 2012, the IRS reopened the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) following continued strong interest from taxpayers and tax practitioners after the closure of the 2011 and 2009 programs. The IRS works on a wide range of international tax issues with DOJ to pursue criminal prosecution of international tax evasion. This program will be open for an indefinite period until otherwise announced.

The IRS has collected billions of dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties so far from people who participated in offshore voluntary disclosure programs since 2009. It is in the best long-term interest of taxpayers to come forward, catch up on their filing requirements and pay their fair share.

Impersonation of Charitable Organizations

Another long-standing type of abuse or fraud is scams that occur in the wake of significant natural disasters.

Following major disasters, it’s common for scam artists to impersonate charities to get money or private information from well-intentioned taxpayers. Scam artists can use a variety of tactics. Some scammers operating bogus charities may contact people by telephone or email to solicit money or financial information. They may even directly contact disaster victims and claim to be working for or on behalf of the IRS to help the victims file casualty loss claims and get tax refunds.

They may attempt to get personal financial information or Social Security numbers that can be used to steal the victims’ identities or financial resources. Bogus websites may solicit funds for disaster victims. The IRS cautions both victims of natural disasters and people wishing to make charitable donations to avoid scam artists by following these tips:

To help disaster victims, donate to recognized charities.

Be wary of charities with names that are similar to familiar or nationally known organizations. Some phony charities use names or websites that sound or look like those of respected, legitimate organizations. IRS.gov has a search feature, Exempt Organizations Select Check, which allows people to find legitimate, qualified charities to which donations may be tax-deductible.

Don’t give out personal financial information, such as Social Security numbers or credit card and bank account numbers and passwords, to anyone who solicits a contribution from you. Scam artists may use this information to steal your identity and money.

Don’t give or send cash. For security and tax record purposes, contribute by check or credit card or another way that provides documentation of the gift.

Call the IRS toll-free disaster assistance telephone number (1-866-562-5227) if you are a disaster victim with specific questions about tax relief or disaster related tax issues.

False Income, Expenses or Exemptions

Another scam involves inflating or including income on a tax return that was never earned, either as wages or as self-employment income in order to maximize refundable credits. Claiming income you did not earn or expenses you did not pay in order to secure larger refundable credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit could have serious repercussions. This could result in repaying the erroneous refunds, including interest and penalties, and in some cases, even prosecution.

Additionally, some taxpayers are filing excessive claims for the fuel tax credit. Farmers and other taxpayers who use fuel for off-highway business purposes may be eligible for the fuel tax credit. But other individuals have claimed the tax credit although they were not eligible. Fraud involving the fuel tax credit is considered a frivolous tax claim and can result in a penalty of $5,000.

Frivolous Arguments

Promoters of frivolous schemes encourage taxpayers to make unreasonable and outlandish claims to avoid paying the taxes they owe. The IRS has a list of frivolous tax arguments that taxpayers should avoid. These arguments are wrong and have been thrown out of court. While taxpayers have the right to contest their tax liabilities in court, no one has the right to disobey the law or disregard their responsibility to pay taxes.

Those who promote or adopt frivolous positions risk a variety of penalties. For example, taxpayers could be responsible for an accuracy-related penalty, a civil fraud penalty, an erroneous refund claim penalty, or a failure to file penalty. The Tax Court may also impose a penalty against taxpayers who make frivolous arguments in court.

Taxpayers who rely on frivolous arguments and schemes may also face criminal prosecution for attempting to evade or defeat tax. Similarly, taxpayers may be convicted of a felony for willfully making and signing under penalties of perjury any return, statement, or other document that the person does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Persons who promote frivolous arguments and those who assist taxpayers in claiming tax benefits based on frivolous arguments may be prosecuted for a criminal felony.

Falsely Claiming Zero Wages or Using False Form 1099

Filing a phony information return is an illegal way to lower the amount of taxes an individual owes. Typically, a Form 4852 (Substitute Form W-2) or a “corrected” Form 1099 is used as a way to improperly reduce taxable income to zero. The taxpayer may also submit a statement rebutting wages and taxes reported by a payer to the IRS.

Sometimes, fraudsters even include an explanation on their Form 4852 that cites statutory language on the definition of wages or may include some reference to a paying company that refuses to issue a corrected Form W-2 for fear of IRS retaliation. Taxpayers should resist any temptation to participate in any variations of this scheme. Filing this type of return may result in a $5,000 penalty.

Some people also attempt fraud using false Form 1099 refund claims. In some cases, individuals have made refund claims based on the bogus theory that the federal government maintains secret accounts for U.S. citizens and that taxpayers can gain access to the accounts by issuing 1099-OID forms to the IRS. In this ongoing scam, the perpetrator files a fake information return, such as a Form 1099 Original Issue Discount (OID), to justify a false refund claim on a corresponding tax return.

Don’t fall prey to people who encourage you to claim deductions or credits to which you are not entitled or willingly allow others to use your information to file false returns. If you are a party to such schemes, you could be liable for financial penalties or even face criminal prosecution.

Abusive Tax Structures

Abusive tax schemes have evolved from simple structuring of abusive domestic and foreign trust arrangements into sophisticated strategies that take advantage of the financial secrecy laws of some foreign jurisdictions and the availability of credit/debit cards issued from offshore financial institutions.

IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) has developed a nationally coordinated program to combat these abusive tax schemes. CI’s primary focus is on the identification and investigation of the tax scheme promoters as well as those who play a substantial or integral role in facilitating, aiding, assisting, or furthering the abusive tax scheme (e.g., accountants, lawyers). Secondarily, but equally important, is the investigation of investors who knowingly participate in abusive tax schemes.

What is an abusive scheme? The Abusive Tax Schemes program encompasses violations of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and related statutes where multiple flow-through entities are used as an integral part of the taxpayer’s scheme to evade taxes. These schemes are characterized by the use of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), International Business Companies (IBCs), foreign financial accounts, offshore credit/debit cards and other similar instruments. The schemes are usually complex involving multi-layer transactions for the purpose of concealing the true nature and ownership of the taxable income and/or assets.

Form over substance are the most important words to remember before buying into any arrangements that promise to “eliminate” or “substantially reduce” your tax liability. The promoters of abusive tax schemes often employ financial instruments in their schemes. However, the instruments are used for improper purposes including the facilitation of tax evasion.

Trusts also commonly show up in abusive tax structures. They are highlighted here because unscrupulous promoters continue to urge taxpayers to transfer large amounts of assets into trusts. These assets include not only cash and investments, but also successful on-going businesses. There are legitimate uses of trusts in tax and estate planning, but the IRS commonly sees highly questionable transactions. These transactions promise reduced taxable income, inflated deductions for personal expenses, the reduction or elimination of self-employment taxes and reduced estate or gift transfer taxes. These transactions commonly arise when taxpayers are transferring wealth from one generation to another. Questionable trusts rarely deliver the tax benefits promised and are used primarily as a means of avoiding income tax liability and hiding assets from creditors, including the IRS.

IRS personnel continue to see an increase in the improper use of private annuity trusts and foreign trusts to shift income and deduct personal expenses, as well as to avoid estate transfer taxes. As with other arrangements, taxpayers should seek the advice of a trusted professional before entering a trust arrangement.

The latest version of the innovative IRS2Go app is now available. Here’s what you can do with the redesigned IRS Smartphone app IRS2Go, version 4.0, available in English and Spanish:

Check the status of your refund. The new version of IRS2Go includes an easy-to-use refund status tracker so taxpayers can follow their tax return step-by-step throughout the IRS process. Just enter your Social Security number, filing status and your expected refund amount. You can start checking on the status of your refund 24 hours after the IRS confirms receipt of an e-filed return or four weeks after you mail a paper return. Since the IRS posts refund updates on a daily basis, there’s no need to check the status more than once each day.

Find free tax preparation. You may qualify for free tax help through the IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance or Tax Counseling for the Elderly programs. A new tool on IRS2Go will help you find a VITA location. Just enter your ZIP code and select a mileage range to see a listing of VITA/TCE sites near you. Select one of the sites and your Smartphone will show an address and map to help you navigate.

Get tax records. You can request a copy of your tax bill or a transcript of your tax return using IRS2Go. The post office will deliver to your address on record.

Stay connected. You can interact with the IRS by following the IRS on Twitter @IRSnews, @IRStaxpros and @IRSenEspanol. You can also watch IRS videos on YouTube, register for email updates or contact the IRS using the “Contact Us” feature.

For more than half a century, Tax Facts has been an essential resource designed to meet the real-world tax-guidance needs of professionals in both the insurance and investment industries.

Due to a number of recent changes in the law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. This brand-new resource provides fast, clear, and authoritative answers to pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format for which Tax Facts is famous.

“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”

The company also points out that the expert authors—Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience.

“The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Kravitz.

Anyone interested can try Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business, risk-free for 30 days, with a 100% guarantee of complete satisfaction. For more information, please go to www.nationalunderwriter.com/TaxFactsIndividuals or call 1-800-543-0874.

Astute financial producers recognize that some of the most successful planning strategies are those customized to meet the individual client’s needs, and, in some cases, this means defying conventional wisdom and focusing on the numbers at hand. Effective Social Security planning is no different.

While it may seem obvious to some advisors that clients should be counseled to delay collecting Social Security in order to maximize benefit levels, in reality this may not be the most effective strategy for many clients. By going against the grain and claiming benefits early, this counterintuitive Social Security strategy can actually help clients make the most of their traditional retirement savings accounts.

Read the full analysis of Professor William Byrnes and Robert Bloink at Think Advisor !

ThinkAdvisor.com supports the professional growth and vitality of the Investment Advisory community, from RIAs and wealth managers of all kinds, to independent broker-dealer and wirehouse representatives. We provide unparalleled access to the knowledge, information and critical resources they need to succeed at every stage in their career, including professional development, education and certification, industry news and analysis, reference tools and services, and community networking opportunities.

FINCEN issued a Valentine today to the marijuana industry that may open the door to financial institutions bank accounts in states where growing and selling marijuana is legal under state law.

Whether a financial institution will be willing to open such an account is another matter, as each account will require an Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filing. However, FINCEN has created a low level of concern “Marijuana Limited” SAR filing that appears to allow a level of comfort regarding disclosure for the financial institutions and allowing FINCEN to track the number of marijuana business account openings.

In assessing the risk of providing services to a marijuana-related business, a financial institution should conduct customer due diligence that includes:

verifying with the appropriate state authorities whether the business is duly licensed and registered;

reviewing the license application (and related documentation) submitted by the business for obtaining a state license to operate its marijuana-related business;

requesting from state licensing and enforcement authorities available information about the business and related parties;

developing an understanding of the normal and expected activity for the business, including the types of products to be sold and the type of customers to be served (e.g., medical versus recreational customers);

ongoing monitoring of publicly available sources for adverse information about the business and related parties;

ongoing monitoring for suspicious activity, including for any of the red flags described in this guidance; and

refreshing information obtained as part of customer due diligence on a periodic basis and commensurate with the risk.

With respect to information regarding state licensure obtained in connection with such customer due diligence, a financial institution may reasonably rely on the accuracy of information provided by state licensing authorities, where states make such information available.

“Marijuana Limited” SAR

A financial institution providing financial services to a marijuana-related business that it reasonably believes, based on its customer due diligence, does not implicate one of the Cole
Memo priorities or violate state law should file a “Marijuana Limited” SAR. U.S. Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole issued a memorandum (the “Cole Memo”) to all United States Attorneys providing updated guidance to federal prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the CSA.

The Cole Memo reiterates Congress’s determination that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Cole Memo notes that DOJ is committed to enforcement of the CSA consistent with those determinations. It also notes that DOJ is committed to using its investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent, and rational way. In furtherance of those objectives, the Cole Memo provides guidance to DOJ attorneys and law enforcement to focus their enforcement resources on persons or organizations whose conduct interferes with any one or more of the following important priorities (the “Cole Memo priorities”):

• Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;
• Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
• Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana;
• Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
• Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
• Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

Developed by the OECD together with G20 countries, the standard calls on jurisdictions to obtain information from their financial institutions and exchange that information automatically with other jurisdictions on an annual basis. The OECD will formally present the standard for the endorsement of G20 finance ministers during a 22-23 February meeting in Sydney, Australia. The OECD is expected to deliver a detailed Commentary on the new standard, as well as technical solutions to implement the actual information exchanges, during a meeting of G20 finance ministers in September 2014.

Presenting the new standard, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said: “This is a real game changer. Globalisation of the world’s financial system has made it increasingly simple for people to make, hold and manage investments outside their country of residence. This new standard on automatic exchange of information will ramp up international tax co-operation, putting governments back on a more even footing as they seek to protect the integrity of their tax systems and fight tax evasion.”

What are the main differences between the standard and FATCA?

The standard consists of a fully reciprocal automatic exchange system from which US specificities have been removed. For instance, it is based on residence and unlike FATCA does not refer to citizenship. Terms, concepts and approaches have been standardised allowing countries to use the system without having to negotiate individual Annexes. Unlike FATCA the standard does not provide for thresholds for pre-existing individual accounts, but it includes a residence address test building on the EU savings directive. It also provides for a simplified indicia search for such accounts. Finally, it has special rules dealing with certain investment entities where they are based in jurisdictions that do not participate in the automatic exchange under the standard.

Under the single global standard jurisdictions obtain information from their financial institutions and automatically exchange that information with other jurisdictions on an annual basis. Part I of this report gives an overview of the standard. Part II contains the text of the Model Competent Authority Agreement (CAA) and the Common Reporting and Due Diligence Standards (CRS) that together make up the standard.

The Report sets out the financial account information to be exchanged, the financial institutions that need to report, the different types of accounts and taxpayers covered, as well as common due diligence procedures to be followed by financial institutions.

To prevent taxpayers from circumventing the CRS it is specifically designed with a broad scope across three dimensions:

The financial information to be reported with respect to reportable accounts includes all types of investment income (including interest, dividends, income from certain insurance contracts and other similar types of income) but also account balances and sales proceeds from financial assets.

The financial institutions that are required to report under the CRS do not only include banks and custodians but also other financial institutions such as brokers, certain collective investment vehicles and certain insurance companies.

Reportable accounts include accounts held by individuals and entities (which includes trusts and foundations), and the standard includes a requirement to look through passive entities to report on the individuals that ultimately control these entities.

The CRS also describes the due diligence procedures that must be followed by financial institutions to identify reportable accounts.

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code provides for the deduction of medical expenses not otherwise covered by insurance for medical care of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent. Under Section 213 medical care is defined as “amounts paid for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease.” Prescribed drug means “a drug or biological requiring a prescription of a physician.”

Regulation Section 1.213-1(e)(2) defines medicine or drug “as items legally procured and generally accepted as falling within a category of medicine or drugs.” At first glance based on the Code it would appear that so long as the taxpayer met the requirements of Section 213, in states where medical marijuana is authorized, expenses incurred for its purchase would be deductible.

Employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) can serve a number of purposes for your small business clients, providing a powerful motivator for employees and simultaneously reducing corporate taxes. In today’s market, however, the most important function of an ESOP may actually solve one of your retiring small business client’s most pressing problems—how to exit the business upon retirement.

This business succession strategy can actually allow a small business client to gradually transition into retirement through a sale of the business to his employees while deferring recognition of any gain on the sale far into the future.

Read the full analysis of Professor William Byrnes and Robert Bloink at Think Advisor !

Authoritative and easy-to-use, 2014 Tax Facts on Insurance & Employee Benefitsshows you how the tax law and regulations are relevant to your insurance, employee benefits, and financial planning practices. Often complex tax law and regulations are explained in clear, understandable language. Pertinent planning points are provided throughout.

Organized in a convenient Q&A format to speed you to the information you need, 2014 Tax Facts on Insurance & Employee Benefits delivers the latest guidance on:

Estate & Gift Tax Planning

Roth IRAs

HSAs

Capital Gains, Qualifying Dividends

Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Under IRC Section 409A

And much more!

Key updates for 2014:

Important federal income and estate tax developments impacting insurance and employee benefits including changes from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

More than thirty new Planning Points, written by practitioners for practitioners, in the following areas:

Life Insurance

Health Insurance

Estate and Gift Tax

Deferred Compensation

Individual Retirement Plans

Plus, you’re kept up-to-date with online supplements for critical developments. Written and reviewed by practicing professionals who are subject matter experts in their respective topics, Tax Facts is the practical resource you can rely on.

The National Taxpayer Advocate provides the following > report information < on the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Earned Income Tax Credit and Family Credits

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate income-earning individuals and families. If you qualify, the credit could be a maximum amount of up to $6,044 in 2013. This means you could pay less or no federal tax or even get a refund.

The EITC is based on your earned income and whether or not there are qualifying children in your household. You must file a tax return to claim the EITC and if you have children, they must meet the relationship, age and residency requirements.

The National Taxpayer Advocate reported that the IRS Incorrectly Bans Many Taxpayers from Claiming EITC (see > Taxpayer Advocate Report on EITC < ) Excerpted from the National Taxpayer Advocate report…

Section 32(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) authorizes the IRS to ban taxpayers from claiming the earned income tax credit (EITC) for two years if the IRS determines they claimed the credit improperly due to reckless or intentional disregard of rules and regulations. This standard requires more than mere negligence on the part of the taxpayer.

According to IRS Chief Counsel guidance, a taxpayer’s failure to participate in an EITC audit does not justify imposing the ban. Once the IRS imposes the ban, any EITC claimed in the next two years will be disallowed even if the taxpayer is otherwise eligible for the credit.

IRS data shows:

The IRS imposed the ban improperly almost 40 percent of the time in 2011;

Taxpayers who were (but for the 2011 ban) eligible for the credit in the following two years were deprived of a tax benefit that averaged more than $4,600 for the two years combined.

In a representative sample of two-year ban cases, the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) found:

In 19 percent of the cases, the IRS imposed the ban solely because EITC had been disallowed in a previous year;

In only 10 percent of the cases did a taxpayer’s response to the audit raise the possibility that he or she had the requisite state of mind to justify the two-year ban;

In 69 percent of the cases, the ban was imposed without required managerial approval;

In almost 90 percent of the cases, neither IRS work papers nor communications to the taxpayer contained the required explanation of why the ban was imposed; and

Taxpayers’ average income was about $15,500.

Low income taxpayers face unique obstacles in learning EITC rules and substantiating their entitlement to the credit, but IRS procedures do not take this into account. Instead, the IRS applies the two-year ban on the basis of unexamined assumptions about the taxpayer’s state of mind or even presupposes reckless or intentional disregard of the rules and regulations, potentially causing significant harm to taxpayers who may be entitled to EITC in a subsequent year.

Treasury > reports < that the other benefit programs results in high administrative costs and low error because of the necessity of the pre-qualification for benefits by a caseworker, whereas the EITC’s program’s administrative costs are less than 1% of the program benefits. The Treasury report continues that “the IRS screens EITC claims against certain criteria and also conducts approximately 500,000 audits of claims annually.”

Almost a Quarter of EITC Payments are in Error

Yet, considering that the IRS improperly bans taxpayers from the EITC program and performs 500,000 audits of EITC claims annually, 22.7% of the EITC is improperly paid. A challenging problem to be addressed. Low administrative cost but high rate of improper denial of eligibility and high rate of improper payment. Send me (or use comments below) suggestions of how these problems may be mitigated.

Treasury’s EITC Program Comments

A number of factors unique to the EITC program trigger errors. The complexity of the law contributes to confusion around eligibility requirements, mainly qualifying child relationship and residency rules. Other factors include high program turnover of one-third annually, return preparer errors, and fraud.

The IRS will continue to address EITC noncompliance through its aggressive compliance program which includes examinations, reviews of income misreporting, systemic corrections during tax return processing, and an enhanced focus on paid return preparers. Because tax return preparers handle two-thirds of returns claiming the EITC, the Department of the Treasury expects the implementation of new preparer requirements for registration, competency testing, continuing education, and compliance checks will improve EITC compliance, decrease fraud, and reduce overall program noncompliance.

For more than half a century, Tax Facts has been an essential resource designed to meet the real-world tax-guidance needs of professionals in both the insurance and investment industries.

Due to a number of recent changes in the law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. This brand-new resource provides fast, clear, and authoritative answers to pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format for which Tax Facts is famous.

“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”

The company also points out that the expert authors—Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience.

“The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Kravitz.

Anyone interested can try Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business, risk-free for 30 days, with a 100% guarantee of complete satisfaction. For more information, please go to www.nationalunderwriter.com/TaxFactsIndividuals or call 1-800-543-0874.

Last Friday (January 31, 2014) the IRS opened the tax filing season for 2013 taxes. In Newswire (IR-2014-9 and -10), also released January 31, the IRS seeks to reach out to low and moderate income workers to alert them to take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit, known as the “EITC”. The IRS stated that the EITC is often overlooked by the low and moderate workers, many whom do their own tax filing.

This year, taxpayers have until Tuesday, April 15, 2014 to file their 2013 tax returns and pay any tax due. The IRS expects to receive more than 148 million individual tax returns this year, and more than 80% of tax returns are now filed electronically.

Approximately 75% of tax filers typically receive refunds, 90% of these refunds issued in less than 21 days. Last year, taxpayers received an average refund of $2,744. The IRS stated that “E-file” when combined with a direct deposit is the fastest way to receive a refund. 75% of refund recipients now choose direct deposit.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

The IRS estimates that 20% of eligible low and moderate income workers miss out on taking advantage of the the EITC, and thus lose any potential refund generated by it. Either the taxpayer does not claim the EITC when filing or does not file a tax return at all because their income is below the filing threshold. The IRS further stated that one-third of the taxpayers eligible for EITC changes each year as their personal circumstances, such as work status or family situation, changes, affecting eligibility.

The EITC varies depending on income, family size and filing status. Last year, over 27 million eligible workers and families received more than $63 billion total in EITC, with an average EITC amount of $2,300.

Workers, self-employed people and farmers who earned $51,567 or less last year could receive larger refunds if they qualify for the EITC. That could mean up to $487 in EITC for people without children, and a maximum credit of up to $6,044 for those with three or more qualifying children. Unlike most deductions and credits, the EITC is refundable. In other words, those eligible may get a refund even if they owe no tax.

Common EITC Mistakes

Taxpayers are responsible for the accuracy of their tax return regardless of who prepares it. The rules for EITC are complicated. The IRS urges taxpayers to seek help if they are unsure of their eligibility (read about Taxpayer Clinics below).

There are several requirements to consider:

Your filing status can’t be Married Filing Separately.

You must have a valid Social Security number for yourself, your spouse if married, and any qualifying child listed on your tax return.

You must have earned income. Earned income includes earnings such as wages, self-employment and farm income.

You may be married or single, with or without children to qualify. If you don’t have children, you must also meet age, residency and dependency rules.

If you are a member of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in a combat zone, special rules apply.

Some common EITC errors are:

Claiming a child who does not meet the relationship, age or residency tests

Filing as “single” or “head of household” when married

Over or under reporting of income and or expenses to qualify for or maximize EITC

Missing Social Security numbers or Social Security Number and last name mismatches for both taxpayers and the children

Online Tools at IRS.gov Available to Help

People can find out if they qualify for the EITC by answering a few questions about income, family size and filing status, among other things using the EITC Assistant, a special online tool. The EITC Assistant will help determine eligibility and will figure an estimated EITC refund. A taxpayer can even get a printout explaining why he or she qualifies or has been denied.

Free Taxpayer Clinics Help Taxpayers File – Located Around the USA

Eligible taxpayers can also use another helpful online resource, the VITA Site Locator tool to locate one of nearly 13,000 community-based volunteer tax sites consisting of over 90,000 volunteers that can help them file their return for free. (In San Diego, Thomas Jefferson School of Law has an active VITA program).

Tele-Tax, for example, help taxpayers see if they qualify for various tax benefits, such as the Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit for eligible families, the American Opportunity Tax Credit for parents and college students, the saver’s credit for low-and moderate-income workers saving for retirement and energy credits for homeowners making qualifying energy-saving home improvements. The automated IRS services can also help home-based businesses check out the new simplified option for claiming the home office deduction, a straightforward computation that allows eligible taxpayers to claim $5 per square foot, up to a maximum of $1,500, instead of filling out a 43-line form (Form 8829) with often complex calculations.

Free Online Tax Software for Filing

When taxpayers are ready to fill out and file their returns, another online option enables anyone to e-file their returns for free. Free File offers two free electronic filing options: brand-name tax software or online Fillable Forms. Taxpayers who make $58,000 or less can choose free options from 14 commercial software providers. There’s no income limit for the second option, Free File Fillable Forms, the electronic version of IRS paper forms, which is best suited to people who are comfortable preparing their own tax return.

Online Refund Tool

Even after taxpayers file, there are more online tools that can provide them with valuable assistance long after tax season ends. One of the most popular is Where’s My Refund? a tool available on IRS.gov that enables taxpayers to track the status of their refund. Initial information will normally be available within 24 hours after the IRS receives the taxpayer’s e-filed return or four weeks after the taxpayer mails a paper return to the IRS. The system updates every 24 hours, usually overnight, so there’s no need to check more often.

Can’t Afford to Pay the Tax Bill by April 15th? Use the Online Payment Agreement Tool

For taxpayers whose concern isn’t a refund, but rather, a tax bill they can’t pay, the Online Payment Agreement tool can help them determine whether they qualify for an installment agreement with the IRS. And those whose tax obligation is even more serious, the Offer in Compromise Pre-Qualifier can help them determine if they qualify for an offer in compromise, an agreement with the IRS that settles their tax liability for less than the full amount owed.

Are You Withholding Enough or Too Much Tax During the Year?

Another useful year-round tool, the IRS Withholding Calculator, helps employees make sure the amount of income tax taken out of their pay is neither too high nor too low. This tool can be particularly useful to taxpayers who, after filling out their tax returns, find that the refund or balance due was higher than expected.

Beware of EITC Scams and Frauds

Scams that create fictitious qualifying children or inflate income levels to get the maximum EITC could leave taxpayers with a penalty. If an EITC claim was reduced or denied after tax year 1996 for any reason other than a mathematical or clerical error, taxpayers must file Form 8862, Information To Claim Earned Income Credit After Disallowance, with the next tax return to claim the EITC.

Tax Help Through YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr

The IRS also offers more than 100 short instructional videos, tax tips and other useful resources year-round through a variety of social media platforms. They include:

The newest addition to the Tax Facts Library, Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business focuses exclusively on what individuals and small businesses need to know to maximize opportunities under today’s often complex tax rules. It is the essential tax reference for financial advisors, & planners; insurance professionals; CPAs; attorneys; and other practitioners advising small businesses and individuals. See http://www.nationalunderwriter.com/tax-facts-on-individuals-small-business.html

Organized in a convenient Q&A format to speed you to the information you need, Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business delivers the latest guidance on:
» Healthcare
» Home Office
» Contractor vs. Employee — clarified!
» Business Deductions and Losses
» Business Life Insurance
» Small Business Valuation
» Small Business Entity Choices
» Accounting — including guidance on how standards change as the business grows
» Capital Gains
» Investor Losses
» New Medicare Tax and Net Investment Income tax
» Individual Income Taxation

Since its creation, the IRS Whistleblower Office has received over 1,300 tips. However, before pursuing tips analysts must first determine that a federal tax issue is involved and not based merely on speculation or conjecture. The majority of the tips come from employees or former employees of companies that do not necessarily adhere to federal tax laws. Tips deemed credible may lead to three different avenues, such as (1) a new audit, (2) expansion of a current audit, or (3) criminal investigation.

However, once the office makes an award determination, the Tax Court has authority to hear appeals resulting from claim disputes.

Read author Dawna Snipes‘ article on recent developments at > AdvisorFYI < . Dawna Snipes is an adjunct professor of National College of Business and Technology, and also with the University of Phoenix.

Now that FATCA and its IGAs has attracted the attention of dual citizens (and “Green Card” holders) of the United States and other countries like Canada, Israel, Mexico, United Kingdom, Ireland, Caribbean Island, among many other citizens, I thought I ought remind the dual nationals of the streamlined compliance opportunity for filing delinquent United States tax returns. This information is excerpted from the IRS website with relevant direct links thereto included.

In 2012 the IRS established new streamlined filing compliance procedures for non-resident U.S. taxpayers that went into effect Sept. 1, 2012. These procedures were implemented in recognition that some U.S. taxpayers living abroad have failed to timely file U.S. federal income tax returns or Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs), but become aware of their filing obligations and seek to come into compliance with the law. These procedures are for non-residents including, but not limited to, dual citizens who have not filed U.S. income tax and information returns.

This streamlined procedure is designed for taxpayers that present a low compliance risk. All submissions will be reviewed, but, as discussed below, the intensity of review will vary according to the level of compliance risk presented by the submission. For those taxpayers presenting low compliance risk, the review will be expedited and the IRS will not assert penalties or pursue follow-up actions. Submissions that present higher compliance risk are not eligible for the streamlined processing procedures and will be subject to a more thorough review and possibly a full examination, which in some cases may include more than three years, in a manner similar to opting out of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

Taxpayers utilizing this procedure will be required to file delinquent tax returns, with appropriate related information returns (e.g. Form 3520 or 5471), for the past three years and to file delinquent FBARs for the past six years. Payment for the tax and interest, if applicable, must be remitted along with delinquent tax returns. For a summary of information about federal income tax return and FBAR filing requirements and potential penalties, see IRS Fact Sheet FS-2011-13. (December 2011).

In addition, retroactive relief for failure to timely elect income deferral on certain retirement and savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty is available through this process. The proper deferral elections with respect to such arrangements must be made with the submission. See instructions below.

Eligibility

This procedure is available for non-resident U.S. taxpayers who have resided outside of the U.S. since January 1, 2009, and who have not filed a U.S. tax return during the same period. These taxpayers must present a low level of compliance risk as described below

Amended returns submitted through this program will be treated as high risk returns and subject to examination, except for those filed for the sole purpose of submitting late-filed Forms 8891 to seek relief for failure to timely elect deferral of income from certain retirement or savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty. It should be noted that this relief is also available under the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program. See below for the information required to be submitted with such requests. (If you need to file an amended return to correct previously reported or unreported income, deductions, credits, tax etc, you should not use this streamlined procedure. Depending on your circumstances, you may want to consider participating in the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.)

All tax returns submitted under this procedure must have a valid Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). For U.S. citizens, a TIN is a Social Security Number (SSN). For individuals that are not eligible for an SSN, an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is a valid TIN. Tax returns filed without a valid SSN or ITIN will not be processed. For those who are ineligible for an SSN, but who do not have an ITIN, a submission may be made through this program if accompanied by a complete ITIN application. For information on obtaining an SSN, see http://www.ssa.gov. For information on obtaining an ITIN, see the ITIN page.

Compliance Risk Determination

The IRS will determine the level of compliance risk presented by the submission based on information provided on the returns filed and based on additional information provided in response to a Questionnaire required as part of the submission. Low risk will be predicated on simple returns with little or no U.S. tax due. Absent any high risk factors, if the submitted returns and application show less than $1,500 in tax due in each of the years, they will be treated as low risk and processed in a streamlined manner.

The risk level may rise if any of the following are present:

If any of the returns submitted through this program claim a refund;

If there is material economic activity in the United States;

If the taxpayer has not declared all of his/her income in his/her country of residence;

If the taxpayer is under audit or investigation by the IRS;

If FBAR penalties have been previously assessed against the taxpayer or if the taxpayer has previously received an FBAR warning letter;

If the taxpayer has a financial interest or authority over a financial account(s) located outside his/her country of residence;

If the taxpayer has a financial interest in an entity or entities located outside his/her country of residence;

If there is U.S. source income; or

If there are indications of sophisticated tax planning or avoidance.

For additional information about what information will be requested to evaluate risk, please see the Questionnaire.

1. Submit complete and accurate delinquent tax returns, with appropriate related information returns, for the last three years for which a U.S. tax return is due.

Please note that all delinquent information returns being filed under this procedure should be sent to the address below with the rest of the submission.

2. Include at the top of the first page of each tax return “Streamlined” to indicate that the returns are being submitted under this procedure. This is very important to ensure that your returns get processed through these procedures.

3. Submit payment of all tax due and owing as reflected on the returns and statutory interest due and owing.

For returns determined to be high risk, failure to file and failure to pay penalties may be imposed in accordance with U.S. federal tax laws and FBAR penalties may be imposed in accordance with U.S. law. Reasonable cause statements may be requested during review or examination of the returns determined to be high risk. For a summary of information about federal income tax return and FBAR filing requirements and potential penalties, see IRS Fact Sheet FS-2011-13(December 2011).

4. Submit copies of filed FBARs for the last six years for which an FBAR is due. (You should file delinquent FBARs according to the FBAR instructions and include a statement explaining that the FBARs are being filed as part of the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident, Non-Filer U.S. Taxpayers. Through June 30, 2013, you may file electronically (http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov) or by sending paper forms to Department of Treasury, Post Office Box 32621, Detroit, MI 48232-0621. After June 30, 2013, you must file electronically (http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov.)) If you are unable to file electronically, you may contact FinCEN’s Regulatory Helpline at 1-800-949-2732 or (if calling from outside the United States) 1-703-905-3975 to determine possible alternatives for timely reporting.

NOTE: Taxpayers filing FBARs electronically do not currently have the technological ability to include a statement explaining that the FBARs are being filed as part of the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident, Non-Filer U.S. Taxpayers. Until such time that they have the ability, it is not necessary to include the statement. (July 18, 2013)

6. If the taxpayer must apply for an ITIN in order to file delinquent returns under this procedure, the application and other documents required for applying for an ITIN must be attached to the the required forms, information and documentation required under this streamlined procedure. See the ITIN page for more.

7. Any taxpayer seeking relief for failure to timely elect deferral of income from certain retirement or savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty will be required to submit:

a statement requesting an extension of time to make an election to defer income tax and identifying the pertinent treaty provision;

for relevant Canadian plans, a Form 8891 for each tax year and each plan and a description of the type of plan covered by the submission; and

a dated statement signed by the taxpayer under penalties of perjury describing:

the events that led to the failure to make the election,

the events that led to the discovery of the failure, and

if the taxpayer relied on a professional advisor, the nature of the advisor’s engagement and responsibilities.

8. This program has been established for non-resident non-filers. Generally, amended returns will not be accepted in this program. The only amended returns accepted through this program are those being filed for the sole purpose of submitting late-filed Forms 8891 to seek relief for failure to timely elect deferral of income from certain retirement or savings plans where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty. Non-resident taxpayers who have previously filed returns but wish to request deferral provisions will be required to submit:

an amended return reflecting no adjustments to income deductions, or credits; and

Other Considerations

Taxpayers who are concerned about the risk of criminal prosecution should be advised that this new procedure does not provide protection from criminal prosecution if the IRS and Department of Justice determine that the taxpayer’s particular circumstances warrant such prosecution. Taxpayers concerned about criminal prosecution because of their particular circumstances should be aware of and consult their legal advisers about the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), announced on Jan. 9, 2012, which offers another means by which taxpayers with undisclosed offshore accounts may become compliant. For additional information go to the OVDP page. It should be noted, however, that once a taxpayer makes a submission under the new procedure described in this document, OVDP is no longer available. It should also be noted that taxpayers who are ineligible to use OVDP are also ineligible to participate in this procedure.

Contributing author Jean Richard to the LexisNexis Guide to FATCA Compliance will be providing the 2nd edition purchasers a Canadian chapter update via LexisNexis. Meanwhile, I excerpt below from the series of questions and answers of Canadian Revenue for the immediate benefit of the Lexis FATCA subscribers.

Reporting and Privacy?

Canadian financial institutions will report information on their U.S. clients directly to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which will ensure that the collection and use of the information is consistent with Canadian privacy laws. In addition, exchanged information will be protected by the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention.

Does the IGA respect the privacy rights of Canadians?

FATCA has raised a number of concerns in Canada – among both dual Canada-U.S. citizens and Canadian financial institutions. One key concern was that the reporting requirements would force financial institutions to report accountholder information directly to the IRS, which would raise concerns about consistency with Canadian privacy laws.

Under the IGA, financial institutions in Canada will not report any information directly to the IRS. Rather, relevant information on U.S. residents and U.S. citizens will be reported to the CRA, similar to existing tax reporting by financial institutions to the CRA on their clients. The exchange of tax information between Canada and the U.S., including on an automatic basis, is already a longstanding practice, is authorized under Article XXVII of the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, and includes safeguards with respect to the use of the exchanged information. The information on U.S. accountholders obtained by the CRA will be exchanged with the IRS through these existing provisions, an approach that is consistent with Canadian privacy laws.

Limits on Reporting?

The IGA exempts key Canadian savings vehicles from being reviewed and reported on, including most federally registered accounts such as:

Registered Retirement Savings Plans

Registered Retirement Income Funds

Pooled Registered Pension Plans

Registered Pension Plans

Tax-Free Savings Accounts

Registered Disability Savings Plans

Registered Education Savings Plans

Deferred Profit Sharing Plans

Smaller deposit-taking institutions, such as credit unions, with assets of less than $175 million will be exempt.

Reciprocity?

The IGA is reciprocal, meaning that information will flow both ways between the tax administrations of the two countries to assist each in administering its own domestic tax laws. The information exchanged will provide tax authorities with greater information on accounts held by their taxpayers in the other country.

U.S. Tax Filing Obligations?

Since 1913, U.S. persons in Canada, including dual citizens, have been required under U.S. tax law to file an annual U.S. federal income tax return with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In addition, since 1972, these persons have been obliged to file an annual Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR) form with the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The IRS has a streamlined process to recognize that some U.S. persons living abroad have not filed timely U.S. federal income tax returns or FBAR forms. Information on this process can be found on the IRS website.

I am a U.S. citizen living in Canada and was not aware that the U.S. wants me to file tax returns. Will the IGA mean that I now have to pay U.S. taxes?

The IGA is strictly an information sharing agreement and does not involve the imposition by the U.S. of any new or higher taxes.

Unlike Canada, the U.S. taxes its citizens who reside in other countries on their worldwide income. The U.S. citizenship-based taxation regime has been in place since 1913, and is not altered by the enactment of FATCA, or the signing of any IGAs. For U.S. citizens resident in Canada, their U.S. tax obligations exist independently of their awareness of these obligations.

Canada respects the sovereign right of the U.S. to use citizenship as a basis for taxation. At the same time, citizenship-based taxation is a departure from the residence-based approach generally followed by Canada and most of the rest of the world, and creates unique challenges for U.S. citizens who reside in other countries. U.S. taxation of its non-resident citizens on their worldwide income, when these individuals are also subject to taxation on their worldwide income by their country of residence, can result in significant compliance burden on these individuals, even when they owe no U.S. tax.

What is the Government doing to protect dual citizens living in Canada against claims by the IRS?

While the Canada-U.S. tax treaty contains a provision that allows a country to collect the taxes imposed by the other country, the treaty does not apply to penalties under laws that impose only a reporting requirement. For example, the CRA will not assist in the collection of U.S. penalties associated with the Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (commonly known as the FBAR), which is a non-tax form required by the U.S. Treasury under the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act that requires the person filing the form to provide details of assets held at non-U.S. financial institutions.

Furthermore, the CRA will not collect the U.S. tax liability of a Canadian citizen if the individual was a Canadian citizen at the time the liability arose (whether or not the individual was also a U.S. citizen at that time).

U.S. Taxes and Penalties?

The IGA will not impose any new U.S. taxes or penalties for non-compliance with U.S. tax laws on U.S. persons holding accounts at Canadian financial institutions, or provide for additional assistance in collection beyond that already permitted by the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. The IGA is strictly an information-sharing agreement.

The IGA also protects Canadians and Canadian financial institutions from the tax withholding provisions in FATCA.

Does the IGA mean that Canada will be enforcing U.S. tax laws?

Legislation to give effect to the provisions of the IGA will be proposed to Parliament in order to ensure that financial institutions can rely on Canadian law when implementing their procedures for complying with the IGA. The CRA, rather than the U.S., will be responsible for administering the IGA. Canadian financial institutions will report information to the CRA.

What are the benefits to Canada of the IGA?

Under the IGA:

Canadian financial institutions will not report any information directly to the IRS. Rather, accountholder information on U.S. residents and U.S. citizens will be reported to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA will transfer the information to the IRS under the authority of the existing provisions of, and protected by the confidentiality safeguards under, the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

The 30 percent FATCA withholding tax will not apply to clients of Canadian financial institutions, and can apply to a Canadian financial institution only if the financial institution is in significant and long-term non-compliance with its obligations under the IGA.

The FATCA requirement that Canadian financial institutions be required to close accounts or refuse to offer services to clients in certain circumstances will be eliminated.

A number of accounts will be exempt from FATCA reporting, including Registered Retirement Savings Plans, Registered Retirement Income Funds, Registered Disability Savings Plans, and Tax-Free Savings Accounts.

Smaller deposit-taking institutions, such as credit unions, with assets of less than $175 million will be exempt from reporting.

The IRS will provide the CRA with enhanced and increased information on certain accounts of Canadian residents held at U.S. financial institutions.

Will Canada be signing similar agreements with other countries?

The IGA is consistent with the Government’s support for recent G-8 and G-20 commitments to multilateral automatic exchange of information for tax purposes. In September 2013, G-20 Leaders committed to automatic exchange of information as the new global standard and endorsed an OECD proposal to develop a global model for automatic exchange of information. The model being developed is based on due diligence and reporting procedures similar to those in the Canada-U.S. IGA.

Canada is actively participating in the work of the OECD to develop the new multilateral standard.

LexisNexis FATCA Compliance Manual

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

Like this:

An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States for the enhanced exchange of tax information under the Canada-United States Tax Convention was signed on February 5, 2014, in Ottawa. See http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/notices/fatca-eng.asp The IGA will enter into force once Canada has notified the United States that the procedures required by Canadian law for the bringing into force of the IGA have been completed. It is proposed that the IGA have effect as of July 1, 2014.

FATCA has raised a number of concerns in Canada—among both dual Canada-U.S. citizens and Canadian financial institutions. One key concern was that the reporting obligations in respect of accounts in Canada would compel Canadian financial institutions to report information on account holders who are U.S. residents and U.S. citizens (including U.S. citizens who are residents or citizens of Canada) directly to the IRS, thus potentially violating Canadian privacy laws. Without an agreement in place, obligations to comply with FATCA would have been unilaterally and automatically imposed on Canadian financial institutions and their clients as of July 1, 2014.

Jean Richard, banking expert and contributing author for the Canadian compliance chapter to the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance added: “Canada’s Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stated that the lengthy negotiations resulted in obtaining significant exemptions and other relief. Do these exemptions and relief, different from those found in the models IGA and other IGA signed, address the Canadian citizens concerns about the extratoriality affect of the US tax system? According Canada National Revenue Minister, Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay,

“This is strictly a tax information-sharing agreement. This agreement will not impose any U.S. taxes or penalties on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents holding accounts in Canada.The CRA does not collect the U.S. tax liability of a Canadian citizen if the individual was a Canadian citizen at the time the liability arose. This includes dual Canada-U.S. citizens. That will not change under this agreement.”

Jean Richard continued: “There is still much Canadian taxpayer concern about how this sensitive issue of risk of double jeopardy for Canadian Citizens who are also US Citizens or Green Card holders is to be dealt with. Canada is a country that is said to have over one million Canadian citizen who happen to be also a US Citizen, perhaps by birth or a parent. Canada and the US tax systems are not perfectly aligned, leading to the potential for double taxation.”

“The double tax agreement has a US-centric feature known as a “savings clause” that subjects US persons to US tax regardless of the applicability of the treaty. The inevitable result is an increase in the tax compliance and tax filing costs for Canadians that also have US nationality or a Green Card. These additional costs must be addressed by the respective authorities and then solutions communicated to the general Canadian population. These costs are in addition to those borne, estimated at about a billion Canadian dollars, by the Canadian financial industry to design and implement FATCA compliant reporting systems.”

Other IGAs including a new corresponding DTA announced by US Treasury

“FATCA implementation is critical to combating international tax evasion and promoting transparency,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Tax Affairs Robert B. Stack. “The agreements announced today clearly demonstrate the considerable international support behind FATCA and we are proud to lead the global charge on this pressing issue.” The U.S. Department of the Treasury recently announced that the United States has signed intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with Hungary and Mauritius, the latter of which also signed a new tax information exchange agreement. Treasury reports that the United States has signed 22 IGAs and has 12 agreements in substance to date.

Under the agreement, financial institutions in Canada will not report any information directly to the IRS. Rather, relevant information on accounts held by U.S. residents and U.S. citizens (including U.S. citizens who are residents or citizens of Canada) will be reported to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA will then exchange the information with the IRS through the existing provisions and safeguards of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. This is consistent with Canada’s privacy laws.

The IRS will provide the CRA with enhanced and increased information on certain accounts of Canadian residents held at U.S. financial institutions.

Significant exemptions and relief have been obtained. For instance, certain accounts are exempt from FATCA and will not be reportable. These include Registered Retirement Savings Plans, Registered Retirement Income Funds, Registered Disability Savings Plans, Tax-Free Savings Accounts, and others. In addition, smaller deposit-taking institutions, such as credit unions, with assets of less than $175 million will be exempt.

The 30 percent FATCA withholding tax will not apply to clients of Canadian financial institutions, and can apply to a Canadian financial institution only if the financial institution is in significant and long-term non-compliance with its obligations under the agreement.

The agreement is consistent with Canada’s support for recent G-8 and G-20 commitments intended to fight tax evasion globally and to improve tax fairness. In September 2013, G-20 Leaders committed to automatic exchange of tax information as the new global standard and endorsed a proposal by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to develop a global model for the automatic exchange of tax information. They also signaled an intention to begin exchanging information automatically on tax matters among G-20 members by the end of 2015.

Fifty contributing authors from the professional and financial industry provide 600 pages of expert analysis within the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition): many perspectives – one voice crafted by the primary author William Byrnes.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance (2nd Edition) comprises 34 Chapters grouped in three parts: compliance program (Chapters 1–4), analysis of FATCA regulations (Chapters 5–16) and analysis of FATCA’s application for certain trading partners of the U.S. (Chapters 17–34), including intergovernmental agreements as well as the OECD’s TRACE initiative for global automatic information exchange protocols and systems. The 34 chapters include many practical examples to assist a compliance officer contextualize the regulations, IGA provisions, and national rules enacted pursuant to an IGA. Chapters include by example an in-depth analysis of the categorization of trusts pursuant to the Regulations and IGAs, operational specificity of the mechanisms of information capture, management and exchange by firms and between countries, insights as to the application of FATCA and the IGAs within new BRIC and European country chapters.

Like this:

This > article < by Professor William Byrnes describes the ancient legal practices, codified in Biblical law and later rabbinical commentary, to protect the needy.

The ancient Hebrews were the first civilization to establish a charitable framework for the caretaking of the populace. The Hebrews developed a complex and comprehensive system of charity to protect the needy and vulnerable. These anti-poverty measures – including regulation of agriculture, loans, working conditions, and customs for sharing at feasts – were a significant development in the jurisprudence of charity.

The first half begins with a brief history of ancient civilization, providing context for the development of charity by exploring the living conditions of the poor. The second half concludes with a searching analysis of the rabbinic jurisprudence that established the jurisprudence of charity.

This ancient jurisprudence is the root of the American modern philanthropic idea of charitable giving exemplified by modern equivalent provisions in the United States Tax Code.

However, the author normatively concludes that American law has in recent times deviated from these practices to the detriment of modern charitable jurisprudence. A return to the wisdom of ancient jurisprudence will improve the effectiveness of modern charity and philanthropy.

As a general rule, an investor takes the same deductions and credits and recognizes income whether the investor owns the property directly or has an interest in a limited partnership that “passes through” the deductions, credits, and income. However, …..

For the three-page analysis of Income, Interest, Taxes, Credits, Depreciation, Deductions, Limitations, and other issues, read William Byrnes and Robert Bloink of Tax Facts Online on > Think Advisor <

Organized in a convenient Q&A format to speed you to the information you need, 2014 Tax Facts on Investments delivers the latest guidance on:

Mutual Funds, Unit Trusts, REITs

Incentive Stock Options

Options & Futures

Real Estate

Stocks, Bonds

Oil & Gas

Precious Metals & Collectibles

And much more!

Key updates for 2014:

Important federal income and estate tax developments impacting investments, including changes from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Expanded coverage of Reverse Mortgages

Expanded coverage of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

More than 30 new Planning Points, written by practitioners for practitioners, in the following areas:

Limitations on Loss Deductions

Charitable Gifts

Reverse Mortgages

Deduction of Interest and Expenses

REITs

Plus, you’re kept up-to-date with online supplements for critical developments. Written and reviewed by practicing professionals who are subject matter experts in their respective topics, Tax Facts is the practical resource you can rely on.

Tax and financial advisors will now have a new tool for helping individuals and small businesses navigate today’s toughest tax questions …

NEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ — In order to aid professionals faced with complicated, confusing tax questions, National Underwriter has released the newest addition to its highly popular Tax Facts library, Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business, an essential tax reference for financial advisors & planners, insurance professionals, CPAs, attorneys, and other practitioners advising small businesses and individuals.

For more than half a century, Tax Facts has been an essential resource designed to meet the real-world tax-guidance needs of professionals in both the insurance and investment industries.

Due to a number of recent changes in the law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. This brand-new resource provides fast, clear, and authoritative answers to pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format for which Tax Facts is famous.

“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”

The company also points out that the expert authors—Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience.

“The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Kravitz.

Anyone interested can try Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business, risk-free for 30 days, with a 100% guarantee of complete satisfaction. For more information, please go to www.nationalunderwriter.com/TaxFactsIndividuals or call 1-800-543-0874.

ABOUT NATIONAL UNDERWRITERFor over 110 years, National Underwriter has been the first in line with the targeted tax, insurance, and financial planning information you need to make critical business decisions. With respected resources available in print, online, and in eBook formats, National Underwriter remains at the forefront of the evolving insurance industry, delivering the thorough and easy-to-use resources you rely on for success. National Underwriter is a Summit Professional Network.

ABOUT SUMMIT PROFESSIONAL NETWORKSSummit Professional Networks supports the growth and vitality of the insurance, financial services and legalcommunities by arming professionals with the knowledge and education they need to succeed at every stage of their careers. We provide face-to-face and digital events, websites, mobile sites and apps, online information services, and magazines giving professionals multi-platform access to our critical resources, including Professional Development; Education & Certification; Prospecting & Data Tools; Industry News & Analysis; Reference Tools and Services; and Community Networking Opportunities.

Using all of our resources across each community we serve, we deliver measurable ROI for our sponsors through a range of turnkey services, including Research, Content Development, Integrated Media, Creative & Design, and Lead Generation.

This artticle discusses one avenue for retirement planning solutions for small businesses. Financial Planners who have small business clients may consider a discussion on the automatic payroll deduction IRAs as one simple way to help employees save for retirement.

A payroll deduction individual retirement account (IRA) is one simple way for businesses to give employees an opportunity to save for retirement. The program is easy to implement; the employer sets up the payroll deduction IRA program with a bank, insurance company or other financial institution, and then the employees choose whether and how much they want deducted from their paychecks and deposited into the IRA. Depending on the IRA service provider, some employees may also have a choice of investments depending on the IRA provider. Wealth managers can add value to employees and employers by, not only establishing a plan, but by also working with employees to help them manage their IRAs.

Under a payroll deduction IRA, the employee makes all of the contributions, thus there are no employer contributions. By making regular payroll deductions, employees are able to contribute smaller amounts each pay period to their IRAs, rather than having to come up with a larger amount all at once.

One advantage of these accounts is that there is little administrative cost and no annual filings with the government. Moreover, businesses of any size can participate as there is no requirement that an employer have a certain number of employees to set up a payroll deduction IRA.

Another element that makes the program attractive to some small businesses is that the program will not be considered an employer retirement plan subject to Federal requirements for reporting and fiduciary responsibilities as long as the employer keeps its involvement to a minimum.

Here’s how the IRAs generally work: The employer sets up the payroll deduction IRA program with a financial institution, such as a bank, mutual fund or insurance company. The employee establishes either a traditional or a Roth IRA (based on the employee’s eligibility and personal choice) with the financial institution and authorizes the payroll deductions. The employer withholds the payroll deduction amounts that the employee has authorized and promptly transmits the funds to the financial institution. After doing so, the employee and the financial institution are responsible for the amounts contributed.

Generally however, the employer needs to remain neutral with respect to the IRA provider. It cannot negotiate with an IRA provider to obtain special terms for its employees, exercise any influence over the investments made or permitted by the IRA provider, or receive any compensation in connection with the IRA program except reimbursement for the actual cost of forwarding the payroll deductions.

Commonly, any employee who performs services for the business (or “employer”) can be eligible to participate. The decision to participate is left exclusively up to the employee. The employees should understand that they have the same opportunity to contribute to an IRA outside the payroll deduction program and that the employer is not providing any additional benefit to employees who participate.

Employees’ tax-deferred contributions are generally limited to a maximum annual calendar year contribution, for 2014 that maximum is $5,500.00. Additional “catch-up” contributions of currently $1,000.00 a year are permitted for employees age 50 or over, thus a total of $6,500.00 a year for 2014.

Example of time value of money

Saving $500.00 per month, for 20 years, at 6% annual return over that time will provide you $232,176.00 for retirement. See the US government’s Tools and Calculators for Investors

The new Presidential myRA to be established by Treasury in 2014

The new myRA, to be established by Treasury under request of President Obama, is covered previously in this blog at > myRA < Several blog subscribers have emailed me with policy and operational questions about the “myRA“. A vein of questions that I find particularly interesting is whether tax policy rests with the executive instead of Congress? The myRA has a tax benefit (tax exemption during the earnings period) and a cost (no fees to be passed onto the employee, but as the adage goes: “there is no free lunch”). Tax Policy (tax imposition and tax benefit) should be established by Congress as part of the democratic process of establishing a fiscal budget. Yet, this norm is not absolute because Congress handed over of both establishing and enforcing regulation to the Executive (Treasury in this case). Establishing and enforcing the regulations also impacts policy. If you care to comment directly in the blog, do so below or feel free to continue sending me your comments directly.

Authoritative and easy-to-use, 2014 Tax Facts on Insurance & Employee Benefitsshows you how the tax law and regulations are relevant to your insurance, employee benefits, and financial planning practices. Often complex tax law and regulations are explained in clear, understandable language. Pertinent planning points are provided throughout.

Organized in a convenient Q&A format to speed you to the information you need, 2014 Tax Facts on Insurance & Employee Benefits delivers the latest guidance on:

Estate & Gift Tax Planning

Roth IRAs

HSAs

Capital Gains, Qualifying Dividends

Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Under IRC Section 409A

And much more!

Key updates for 2014:

Important federal income and estate tax developments impacting insurance and employee benefits including changes from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

More than thirty new Planning Points, written by practitioners for practitioners, in the following areas:

Life Insurance

Health Insurance

Estate and Gift Tax

Deferred Compensation

Individual Retirement Plans

Plus, you’re kept up-to-date with online supplements for critical developments. Written and reviewed by practicing professionals who are subject matter experts in their respective topics, Tax Facts is the practical resource you can rely on.

The IRS reports that 122 million taxpayers e-filed in 2013 for the 2012 tax year: IRS e-file. The IRS provides five reasons why a taxpayer should e-file your tax return:

1. Accurate and complete. E-file is the best way to file an accurate and complete tax return. The tax software does the math for you, and it helps you avoid mistakes.

2. Safe and secure. IRS e-file meets strict guidelines and uses the best encryption technology. The IRS has safely and securely processed more than 1.2 billion e-filed individual tax returns since the program began.

3. Faster refunds. E-filing usually brings a faster refund because there is nothing to mail and your return is less likely to have errors, which take longer to process. The IRS issues most refunds in less than 21 days. The fastest way to get your refund is to combine e-file with direct deposit into your bank account.

4. Payment options. If you owe taxes, you can e-file early and set an automatic payment date anytime on or before the April 15 due date. You can pay by check or money order, or by debit or credit card. You can also transfer funds electronically from your bank account.

The newest addition to the Tax Facts Library, Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business focuses exclusively on what individuals and small businesses need to know to maximize opportunities under today’s often complex tax rules. It is the essential tax reference for financial advisors, & planners; insurance professionals; CPAs; attorneys; and other practitioners advising small businesses and individuals. See http://www.nationalunderwriter.com/tax-facts-on-individuals-small-business.html

Organized in a convenient Q&A format to speed you to the information you need, Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business delivers the latest guidance on:
» Healthcare
» Home Office
» Contractor vs. Employee — clarified!
» Business Deductions and Losses
» Business Life Insurance
» Small Business Valuation
» Small Business Entity Choices
» Accounting — including guidance on how standards change as the business grows
» Capital Gains
» Investor Losses
» New Medicare Tax and Net Investment Income tax
» Individual Income Taxation

Like this:

The IRS released its first Tax Tip of the calendar year (IRS Tax Tip 2014-01). I have excerpted it below for your convenience:

Even if you don’t have to file a tax return, there are times when you should. Here are five good reasons why you should file a return, even if you’re not required to do so:

1. Tax Withheld or Paid. Did your employer withhold federal income tax from your pay? Did you make estimated tax payments? Did you overpay last year and have it applied to this year’s tax? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you could be due a refund. But you have to file a tax return to get it.

2. Earned Income Tax Credit. Did you work and earn less than $51,567 last year? You could receive EITC as a tax refund if you qualify. Families with qualifying children may be eligible for up to $6,044. Use the EITC Assistant tool on IRS.gov to find out if you qualify. If you do, file a tax return and claim it.

3. Additional Child Tax Credit. Do you have at least one child that qualifies for the Child Tax Credit? If you don’t get the full credit amount, you may qualify for the Additional Child Tax Credit. To claim it, you need to file Schedule 8812, Child Tax Credit, with your tax return.

4. American Opportunity Credit. Are you a student or do you support a student? If so, you may be eligible for this credit. Students in their first four years of higher education may qualify for as much as $2,500. Even those who owe no tax may get up to $1,000 of the credit refunded per eligible student. You must file Form 8863, Education Credits, with your tax return to claim this credit.

5. Health Coverage Tax Credit. Did you receive Trade Adjustment Assistance, Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance, Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance or pension benefit payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation? If so, you may qualify for the Health Coverage Tax Credit. The HCTC helps make health insurance more affordable for you and your family. This credit pays 72.5 percent of qualified health insurance premiums. Visit IRS.gov for more on this credit.

To sum it all up, check to see if you would benefit from filing a federal tax return. You may qualify for a tax refund even if you don’t have to file. And remember, if you do qualify for a refund, you must file a return to claim it.

Do You Need to File a Federal Income Tax Return?

Many people will file a 2013 Federal income tax return even though the income on the return was below the filing requirement. The questions below will help you determine if you need to file a Federal Income Tax return or if you need to stop your withholding so you will not have to file an unnecessary return in the future.

The Internal Revenue Service is providing this information as a part of our customer service and outreach efforts to Reduce Taxpayer Burden and Processing Costs. Changing your withholding and/or not filing Unnecessary Returns will save both you and the government time and money.

Even if you do not have to file a return, you should file one to get a refund of any Federal Income Tax withheld.

To determine if you need to file a Federal Income Tax return for 2013 answer the following questions:

Occasionally, individuals have one-time or infrequent financial transactions that may require them to file a Federal Income Tax return. Do any of the following examples apply to you?

Did you have Federal taxes withheld from your pension and wages for this tax year and wish to get a refund back?

Are you a church employee with income in wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security or Medicare taxes?

The newest addition to the Tax Facts Library, Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business focuses exclusively on what individuals and small businesses need to know to maximize opportunities under today’s often complex tax rules. It is the essential tax reference for financial advisors, & planners; insurance professionals; CPAs; attorneys; and other practitioners advising small businesses and individuals. See http://www.nationalunderwriter.com/tax-facts-on-individuals-small-business.html

Organized in a convenient Q&A format to speed you to the information you need, Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business delivers the latest guidance on:
» Healthcare
» Home Office
» Contractor vs. Employee — clarified!
» Business Deductions and Losses
» Business Life Insurance
» Small Business Valuation
» Small Business Entity Choices
» Accounting — including guidance on how standards change as the business grows
» Capital Gains
» Investor Losses
» New Medicare Tax and Net Investment Income tax
» Individual Income Taxation

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) on Thursday published two administrative rulings, providing additional information on whether a person’s conduct related to convertible virtual currency brings them within the Bank Secrecy Act’s (BSA) definition of a money transmitter. The first ruling states that, to the extent a user creates or “mines” a convertible virtual currency solely for a user’s own purposes, the user is not a money transmitter under the BSA. The second states that a company purchasing and selling convertible virtual currency as an investment exclusively for the company’s benefit is not a money transmitter.

The rulings further interpret FinCEN’s March 18, 2013 Guidance Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies to address these business models. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued the March 18, 2013 interpretive guidance to clarify the applicability of the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.

Currency vs. Virtual Currency

FinCEN’s regulations define currency (also referred to as “real” currency) as “the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that [i] is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.” In contrast to real currency, “virtual” currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses “convertible” virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.

LexisNexis’ Money Laundering, Asset Forfeiture and Recovery and Compliance: A Global Guide – This eBook is designed to provide the reader with accurate analyses of the AML/CTF Financial and Legal Intelligence, law and practice in the nations of the world with the most current references and resources. The eBook is organized around five main themes: 1. Money Laundering Risk and Compliance; 2. The Law of Anti-Money Laundering and Compliance; 3. Criminal and Civil Forfeiture; 4. Compliance and 5. International Cooperation.

Each chapter is made up of five parts. Part I, “Introduction,” begins with the analysis of money laundering risks and compliance with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and then concludes with the country’s rating based on the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) of the U.S. State Department. Part II, “Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorist Financing (AML/CTF)” and Part III, “Criminal and Civil Forfeiture,” evaluate the judicial and legislative structures of the country. Given the increasing global dimension of AML/CTF activities, these sections give special attention to how a country has created statutes, decisions, policies and the judicial enforcement procedures needed to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Part IV, “Compliance,” examines the most critical processes for the prevention and detection of money laundering and terrorist financing. This section reflects on the practical elements that should be in place so that financial institutions can comply with AML/CTF requirements; these are categorized into the development and implementation of internal controls, policies and procedures. Part V, “International Cooperation,” reviews the compilation of international laws and treaties between countries working together to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.